alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 12,729.

#### State of Louisiana ex rel. Jules Andrieu vs. N. H. Rightor, Judge, etc.

'When the record o£ appeal or tlie petition oí the litigant is suffered to be filed or the cause heard, and it is then ascertained that by inadvertence the record or petition is not properly stamped, or the stamps defectively canceled, if the litigant tenders the requisite stamps properly canceled, the offer should be accepted and the suit not dismissed. 37 An. 573; 16 An. 1203; i3 An, 883; Stamp Act No. 136 of 1880.

QN Application for Writs of *Mandamus*and *Certiorari.*

*Charles F. Claiborne*for Relator.

*Dinlcelspiel & Hart*for Respondent.

Submitted on briefs January 24, 1898.

Opinion handed down February 7, 1898.

On Application por Writs op Certiorari and Mandamus.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Miller, J.

The relator seeks the writs to compel the judge of the lower court to reinstate and determine the suit brought up to the division of the Civil District Court by appeal from the City Court, and the record of which was not sufficiently stamped. The City Court gave the plaintiff the judgment claimed and afterward, on appeal, the Civil District Court reversed it and dismissed plaintiff’s suit, because of deficiency in the stamps.

While it is extremely important that the courts should exercise the necessary supervision and control in respect to the stamps required to be placed on all judicial records we do not think the litigant’s suit should be dismissed, if, from inadvertence, he fails to affix the requisite stamps on his petition or record of appeal, but offers to attach the requisite stamps when the error is discovered. It would be entirely proper for the court to refuse to hear the case and the paper or record should not be allowed to be filed at all without the requisite stamps, but if filed, or the cause is suffered to proceed to hearing, the law, in our opinion, does not authorize the *114judgment to be annulled and the suit dismissed, because the deficiency of stamps or the defective cancellation is then discovered and the litigant tenders the stamps required.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the writ of *mandamus*issue directing the respondent judge to reinstate and determine the relator’s suit on his affixing to the record of appeal the required stamps properly canceled.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 December 22, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 Honorable Wm. Terrell Hodges, United States District Judge for the Middle District of *

Florida, sitting by designation.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 05-13025

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-00586-CR-8-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JESUS ALVEAR URIBE, 

a.k.a. Primazo, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

_________________________

(December 22, 2006)

Before DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and HODGES, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:
2

Defendant/Appellant Jesus Alvear Uribe (“Uribe”) appeals his conviction

and sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine and methamphetamine with the

intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), 841(b)(1)(A)(vii),

846, and possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. There are three

issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court committed plain error in admitting

into evidence government-produced English transcripts of Spanish telephone

conversations containing handwritten notations identifying Uribe as a speaker in

violation of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d

177 (2004); (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Uribe’s

motion for a mistrial when a witness for the government stated on direct

examination that he was reluctant to testify because he feared that someone would

harm his family; and (3) whether the district court erred in attributing to Uribe for

sentencing purposes a quantity of drugs seized at a location where Uribe was never

seen. 

After carefully considering the briefs, reviewing the record on appeal, and

hearing oral argument, we find no error on the part of the district court as to any of

these issues. Accordingly, we affirm Uribe’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.
IB

Union Calendar No. 18

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 614

[Report No. 104–36]

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of Minnesota

the New London National Fish Hatchery production facility.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 20, 1995

Mr. MINGE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Resources

FEBRUARY 15, 1995

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Omit the part struck through and insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the

State of Minnesota the New London National Fish

Hatchery production facility.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 614 RH

1 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF NEW LONDON NATIONAL

2 FISH HATCHERY PRODUCTION FACILITY.

3 (a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—Notwithstanding

4 any other provision of law and within 180 days after the

5 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the

6 Interior shall convey to the State of Minnesota without

7 reimbursement all right, title, and interest of the United

8 States in and to the property comprising the New London

9 National Fish Hatchery production facility, located out10 side of downtown New London, Minnesota, including—

11 (1) all easements and water rights relating to

12 that property, and

13 (2) all land, improvements, and related personal

14 property comprising that production facility.

15 (b) USE OF PROPERTY.—All property and interests

16 conveyed under this section shall be used by the Minnesota

17 Department of Natural Resources for the Minnesota fish18 ery resources management program.

19 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—All right, title, and

20 interest in and to all property and interests conveyed

21 under this section shall revert to the United States on any

22 date on which any of the property or interests are used

23 other than for the Minnesota fishery resources manage24 ment program.

25 (c) USE AND REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—The prop26 erty conveyed to the State of Minnesota pursuant to this
3

•HR 614 RH

1 section shall be used by the State for purposes of fishery

2 resources management, and if it is used for any other pur3 pose all right, title, and interest in and to all property con4 veyed pursuant to this section shall revert to the United

5 States. The State of Minnesota shall ensure that the prop6 erty reverting to the United States is in substantially the

7 same or better condition as at the time of transfer.
Union Calendar No. 18

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 614

[Report No. 104–36]

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to

Fish Hatchery production facility.the State of Minnesota the New London National

FEBRUARY 15, 1995

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Commitordered to be printed tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and
Summary Translation	Exhibit 4.68


 


Loan Agreement


 


Contract No. : 2013JIYINDAIZIDI13100914


 


Borrower
: Hebei Xuhua Trading Co., Ltd


Lender :
CITIC Shijiazhuang Branch


Signing
Date : October 9, 2013


Loan Amount
: RMB90,000,000


 


Length of
maturity : From October 9, 2013 to October 9, 2014


Use of Loan
: Working Capital


Loan Interest : 6.6%


Date of
Draft :September 2, 2013


Withdrawal
Amount : RMB90,000,000


Payment Method : The interest should be repaid by monthly. The
principal shall be fully repaid at the maturity date of the loan.


Repayment
Date :October 9, 2014


 


Loan Guarantee : Guaranty of Pledge, Guaranty
of Mortgage


 


- Ganglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd entered into The Maximum
Mortgage Contract with the lender, with the contract no.2013JIYINZUIQUANZHIZIDI13140824.


 


- Hebei Chuanglian Finance Leasing Co., Ltd entered into The
Maximum Pledge Contract with the lender, with the contract no.2013JIYINZUIBAOZIDI13121740.


 


- LI YONG HUI entered into The Maximum Pledge Contract with
the lender, with the contract no.2013JIYINZUIBAOZIDI13121744.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHRISTOPHER DIAZ,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 537 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of April, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11297 and #11298] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 3. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Nebraska (FEMA—1770—DR), dated 06/20/2008. 

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding.                     

*Incident Period:*                         05/22/2008 through 06/24/2008.                     

*Effective Date:*                         07/29/2008.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         08/19/2008.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         03/20/2009.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Nebraska, dated 06/20/2008 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: 

*Primary Counties: (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):*

Holt. 

*Contiguous Counties: (Economic Injury Loans Only):*

Nebraska: Antelope, Boyd, Keya Paha, Knox, Rock, Wheeler.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Roger B. Garland, 

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-17942 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 10.7

January 24, 2007

Mr. James E. Woys

President, Government & Specialty Services

[ADDRESS]

[ADDRESS]

Dear Jim:

The purpose of this letter
agreement is to amend your Employment Letter Agreement (the Letter Agreement) dated as of January 30, 2006, by and between you and Health Net, Inc. (the Company) as set forth below. Capitalized terms used but not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Letter Agreement. Except as set forth below, all other terms of the Letter Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

Paragraph 1, Section A is hereby amended and restated as follows:

Duties. Your title is President Government & Specialty Services but may be changed at the discretion of the Company to a title that reflects a similarly senior executive position. You report directly to Jay Gellert,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, but your reporting relationship may be changed from time to time at the discretion of the Company. Your duties and responsibilities are to provide executive leadership and management of the
Federal Services business unit, but the Company reserves the right to assign you other duties as needed and to change your duties from time-to-time on reasonable notice, based on your skills and the needs of the Company. Effective November 10,
2006, you were asked to assume the role of Interim Chief Financial Officer for the Company. Your duties and responsibilities as Interim Chief Financial Officer are to provide executive leadership and management of the Companys Finance
department until such a time as the Company appoints a new Chief Financial Officer. You shall continue to report to Jay Gellert in your role as Interim Chief Financial Officer.

Paragraph 5, Section G is added as follows:

Corporate Housing. From January 1, 2007 through December 31,
2007, in lieu of hotel accommodations, the Company will provide you with a furnished corporate apartment in Woodland Hills, CA. All expenses associated with such corporate housing will be deemed to be imputed income to you and will be
grossed-up for income tax purposes at the applicable federal and state income tax level.



---

In order to confirm your agreement with the Company and your acceptance of these terms, please sign one copy of this
letter and return it to me.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Very truly yours,                    
|                                     
|/s/ Jay M. Gellert                   
|Jay M. Gellert                       
|President and Chief Executive Officer

This will confirm my agreement to the amendment set forth above.



|            |  |        
|----------- |  | -------
|            | 
|/s/Jim Woys |  | 1-26-07
|Jim Woys    |  | Date   



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|cc: |  | Karin Mayhew                        
|    |  | D.Colia  for J. Woys personnel file
#### Sabina Gersten, Appellant, v. Edward Robinson, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **1080**

GREGORY BADER , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

v. CREIGHTON WOLFE SOSSOMON , Defendant

– Appell ant
. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Distri ct of North Carolina , at Bryson City

. Martin K. Reidinger , District Judge. ( 2 :0 9

- cv - 0 00 49

- MR

- DLH )

Submitted : September 29 , 2011 Decided: October 4, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by unpublished per curiam opinio n . Creighton W. Sossomon, Highland, North Carolina , for Appellant. Mark C. Kurdys, ROBERTS & STEVENS, P.A., Asheville , North Carolina , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Creighton Wolfe Sossom on appeals the district court’s order granting enforcement of a settlement agreement between Sossomon and Gregory Bader and its order denying his motion to amend the court’s judgment enforcing that agreement. On appeal, Sossomon argues that the district c ourt erred in enforcing the agreement because its terms were not sufficiently clear, full payment was not yet due, and the court failed to conduct a plenary hearing. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

“ We review [ a ] district court’s findings of f ac t for clear error and its decision whether to enforce a settlement agreement for abuse of discretion. ” Hensley v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. , 277 F.3d 535, 541 (4th Cir. 2002). We review the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion as well for abuse of dis cretion, Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. , LLC , 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010). “[T]o exercise its inherent power to enforce a settlement agreement, a district court (1) must find that the parties reached a complete agreement and (2) must be able to de termine its terms and conditions.” Id. at 540

- 41. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the parties reached a complete agreement with clear and unambiguous terms and conditions and in ordering full payment in co mpliance with that agreement. Further, we find Sossomon’s contention that he did not receive a3 plenary hearing without merit, as the district court did, in fact, schedule two hearings, one of which Sossomon failed to attend. Accordingly, we affirm the d istrict court’s order s . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 Thomas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. ("the
Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Mark
Meller, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                       Date:   May 20, 2008

                                       By /s/ Mark Meller
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Mark Meller
                                       Chief Executive Officer and
                                       Principal Accounting Officer
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 on Form 10-Q of Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert O. Bond, as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/   ROBERT O. BOND


Robert O. Bond


President and Chief Operating Officer





November 4, 2010











This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents 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 Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### BULTMAN v. WOOD.*

No. 16049.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 22, 1936.

For former opinion, see 168 So. 384.

Azzo J. Plough, of New Orleans (James F. Galloway, of Gulfport, Miss., of counsel), for appellant.

Legier, McEnerny & Waguespack, of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

Writ of certiorari denied Oct. 6, 1936.

PER CURIAM.

Counsel criticises our opinion in this case on the ground that it is not in accord with the holding in Muntz v. Algiers & Gretna R. R. Co., 114 La. 437, 38 So. 410. The Muntz Case is authority for the proposition that one may be called in warranty if he be in privity with the defendant in the suit and that privity may be established by stipulation pour autrui in the contract, whereas the cases cited by us all hold that there must be a privity between the plaintiff and the party called in warranty to support the call. We recognize the fact that the Muntz Case is a qualification of the doctrine of the cases discussed by us, but its effect, when applied to this case, cannot alter the result, since it is not pretended, or proved, that there was any privity of contract between the defendant in this case and the succession of Wood, called in warranty.

The application for rehearing is refused.

Rehearing refused.