alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ALAMO AMUSEMENT CO. v. HARCOL MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRIES, Inc.

No. 14197.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 10, 1933.

Henry W. Robinson, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Milling, Godchaux, Saal & Milling, of New Orleans, fori appellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit on eight promissory notes,each for the sum of $50, or a total of $400. The defense is that the notes were signed in . error by defendant and obtained -by plaintiff in fraud and by duress. There was judgment below as prayed for, and defendant has appealed.

The record shows that the defendant was general agent of the General Talking Pictures Corporation, and in that capacity sold plaintiff a talking picture machine for $6,500. As a part of the consideration of the sale, defendant, the vendor, agreed to pay plaintiff, the vendee, $500, provided plaintiff would agree to pay the whole amount, that is to say, $6,500. Why the transaction was handled in this way is not apparent, perhaps because of some agreement to maintain the price of the machine, but it is immaterial. The fact is that the sale was so executed. When plaintiff undertook to collect the $500, defendant demurred, stating that the machine had not been properly used by the plaintiff and making several other complaints, but, following a discussion, and, upon agreement to accept payment in installments and to extend the time, ten notes of $50 each were executed and given plaintiff. Two of these notes were paid, and the remainder now forms the basis of this suit.

No evidence of fraud or error is in the record. The alleged duress consisted in a demand for payment of the claim at a time when defendant was financially embarrassed. Our attention has been directed to no authority, and we know of none, which would support the proposition that a threat to institute suit for the purpose of collecting a claim amounts to duress. It is perfectly true, as defendant suggests, that' the insistence upon payment of a claim, coupled with a threat of litigation, is often embarrassing and frequently disastrous, but it is expected that obligations are to be met and courts are established for the enforcement of just obligations.

There is a reconventional demand based upon the alleged violation of the plaintiff of the agreement of sale, in that a resale was attempted without the permission of the manufacturer, the General Talking Pictures Corporation. This conduct on the plaintiff’s part is alleged to have resulted/ in the loss of the agency for the General Talking Pictures Corporation, with consequent loss of profits on that account. We are not impressed with the substantial character of this demand, but, if it had any force, the facts on which it is based were known to the defendant at the time the ten notes were executed. In fact, all of the matters of which the defendant complains were known at that time, and it is our view that the differences were settled and the claim merged in the agreement reached at that time, which we view as a compromise settlement. See W. G. Coyle & Co. v. McCoy, 6 Orleans App. 84.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CFO

**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of Principal Accounting Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

I, Trupti Mehta, Chief Accounting Officer of Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. (the “Registrant”) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period September 30, 2007 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”):

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

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

/s/ Trupti Mehta

Trupti Mehta, Chief Accounting Officer

November 12, 2007

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Princeton Security Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**STATEMENT
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**


**SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002,**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




The
      undersigned, Scott Gyure, is the Chief Financial Officer of AMB Financial Corp.
      (the “Company”).




This
      statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of
      the
      Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
“Report”).




By
      execution of this statement, I certify that:




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(a) or 78o(d)]
                and




2.
            the
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company
                as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
                Report.




This
      statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that
      this
      statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this statement
      be
      deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.




March
              30, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Scott
              GyureDate
            Scott
              Gyure
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50677

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS TORRES,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-98-CR-60

- - - - - - - - - -

October 19, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHE’ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Torres appeals from the district court’s order

denying his motion to revoke the magistrate judge’s pretrial

detention order. Torres’s indictment on drug charges gives rise

to a presumption that no conditions of release exist that would

reasonably assure that he would appear at trial. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3142(e); United States v. Trosper, 809 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th

Cir. 1997). Because Torres has not produced evidence necessary

to overcome the statutory presumption that he is a flight risk,

the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 9 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 93
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 9 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 94
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 9 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 95
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 9 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 96
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 9 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 97
2:09-cv-11529-NGE-VMM Doc # 9 Filed 06/03/09 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 98
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 150 (Monday, August 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17773]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11306 and <greek-i>11307]


Illinois Disaster Number IL-00015

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Illinois ( FEMA-1771-DR), dated 06/25/
2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms, and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 06/01/2008 and continuing through 07/22/2008.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/22/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/25/2008.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/23/2009.

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 President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of ILLINOIS, dated 06/25/2008 is hereby 
amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 
06/01/2008 and continuing through 07/22/2008.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-17773 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Electric Car Company, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on his knowledge:

(1)

the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: August 19, 2010

| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| |                                                      
| |                                                      
| | /s/ Gary Spaniak                                     
| | Gary Spaniak                                         
| | Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John H. Stewart, Relator, v. John F. Ahearn, President of The Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, Respondent.

Writ dismissed and proceedings affirmed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
No. 12,901.

#### State of Louisiana vs. Dennis Hopkins.

The only point presented on appeal related to evidence of a fact that did. not afford ground to reverse the verdict.

ON APPEAL from the Seventh Judicial District Court for the Parish of Madison. *Montgomery, J.*

*M. J. Cunningham,*Attorney General, and *Wm. S. Holmes*for Plaintiff, Appellee.

*Snyder & Spencer*for Defendant, Appellant.

Submitted on briefs November 12, 1898.

Opinion handed down November 21, 1898.

*1172The opinion of the court was delivered by

Breaux. J.

Tee defendant was indicted for murder on the 25th day of January, 1898.

He was arraigned and pleaded not guilty on the 5th day of February following.

In July of 1898 he was tried and a verdict of guilty “without ■capital punishment ” was returned by the jury.

Only one bill of exceptions was taken during the trial, and it sets forth that the court was requested to charge that when a person is ■engaged in quarreling with another, and some one at a distance informed of the quarrel awaits for the persons ¡quarreling and voluntarily engages in the quarrel, this third person must be held to have provoked the quárrel, and not one or the other of the persons engaged in the quarrel.

The record also contains the following:

> “ The prisoner, in open court, requested that he be sent to the ‘ State penitentiary ’ for safe keeping, which request was granted ' by the court, and the sheriff was ordered to convey him ‘ to the .State penitentiary at Baton Rouge.’ ”

There is a receipt of record showing that the defendant is in the penitentiary. The accused is not represented by counsel before this ■court.

We are not informed of the reason which influenced.the accused to seek safety in the penitentiary.

In view of the gravity of the case we gave consideration to the ruling of the trial judge as shown by the bill of exceptions before mentioned, and we do not dismiss the appeal.

On the Merits.

The refusal of the District Judge to instruct the injury as requested was proper in our view. The inscruction was not possible without assuming that the facts set forth in the requested charge had been proven on trial. It was a matter of fact, which did not involve any principle of law.

The case of defendant was not prejudiced by the refusal.

The bill of exceptions recites that the court instructed the jury that they were the exclusive judges of the evidence, and if they found from the evidence that the accused provoked the difficulty and “ slew the deceased he would not be entitled to use the plea of *1173self-defence” to obtain an acquittal, but as to whether he “did provoke the difficulty ” or not, the “jury must determine from the-evidence.”

This charge correctly, as we take it, presented the law of the case. The sufficiency of the proof of facts stated was a question for the-jury to determine.

An expression of opinion by the court as to what had been proven-would have been an instruction regarding the facts of the case.

The issues before us do not justify us in setting aside the verdict and sentence.

The judgment is affirmed.
EX-4.2





 Exhibit 4.2 

MEREO BIOPHARMA GROUP PLC incorporated in England and Wales with registered number 09481161 (Company). 

 

			
	                CERTIFICATE NO. 1	  	AMOUNT OF NOTES: £3,841,479

 unsecured convertible loan notes (Notes). 

Issued pursuant to the articles of association of the Company and created by a resolution of the directors passed on 8th February 2020. 

This is to certify that Novartis Pharma AG is the registered holder of the nominal amount stated above of the Notes constituted by a loan note instrument
dated 10 February 2020 (Instrument) and made by the Company. The Notes are issued subject to, and with the benefit of, the provisions contained in the Instrument and the conditions and other provisions endorsed on this certificate and/or
attached to it (Conditions). Interest is payable only in certain circumstances in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Instrument. 
 Executed as a deed
by the Company this 10 February 2020. 
 Notes: 
  

	1.	 No transfer of any part of the Notes represented by this Certificate can be registered without production of
this Certificate. 


  

	2.	 The Notes are governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of England. 



 

					
	 Signed as a Deed by MEREO BIOPHARMA GROUP PLC 
  

acting by: Denise Scots-Knight
	  	}
}
}
}
}	  	 



/s/ Denise Scots-Knight

		  		  	Director
			
	in the presence of:	  	}
}	  	 /s/ Gemma Avery

		  		  	Name of Witness
O pinion filed January 9, 2020



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 368

- CV

__________ IN RE JUAN ESPINOZA

Original Proceeding

-- and

--



### __________ No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 369

- CV

__________ IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF J.A.E., A MINOR

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. G128762 M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N On November 26, 2019, Juan Espinoza filed in this court a motion for stay and motion for temporary relief in which he requested that this court issue a stay related to cause no. G12876 in the Midland County Court at Law. Espinoza
indicated in his motion that the case was scheduled for a hearing on December 6 and
that he “will request” a writ of mandamus in conjunction with his motion ; however, Espinoza has yet to file a writ of mandamus as he indicated he would. We deny the motion for stay and motion for temporary relief. Espinoza also filed a notice of appeal from an order in which the trial court denied Espinoza’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. W hen the appeal was
docket e d in this court , the clerk of th is court notified the parties that the trial court’s order did not appear to b e a final, appealable order. We requested that Espinoza file a response showing grounds to continue the appeal , and w e directed Espinoza to pay the $ 20 5 filing fee on or before December 6 , 201 9

. W e notified Espinoza by letter
dated December 12 , 2019
, that th e filing fee was past due. In th at letter, we directed Espinoza to pay the $205 filing fee on or before December 17 , 201 9 , and we
informed Espinoza that failure to do so “ may result in dismissal of the case

. ” As of this date, Espinoza has not file d any response showing grounds to continue the appeal
, nor has he remitted the filing fee

. Because A ppellant has failed to pay the required filing fee in this appeal and has failed to comply with this court’s directives
, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5, 42.3.
Cause No. 11

- 19

- 00368

- CV and Cause No. 11

- 19

- 00369

- CV are dismissed.

January 9, 2020 PER CURIAM
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher
, J. , and Wright, S.C.J. 1 Willson, J., not participating.

1 Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland
, sitting by assignment.
PROXY

          THIS PROXY IS SOLICITED  ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF  DIRECTORS  FOR THE
   2001 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS OF HEARTLAND BANCSHARES, INC.

      I hereby appoint Steve Bechman and Jeffrey L. Goben,  and each of them, my
proxies, with power of substitution and revocation, to vote all Common Shares of
Heartland  Bancshares,  Inc. that I am entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting of
Shareholders to be held at Hillview Country Club, 1800 E. King Street, Franklin,
Indiana  46131,  on Monday,  April 23, 2001, at 6:30 p.m.,  local time,  and any
adjournments thereof, as provided herein:

1.    ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

|_|     FOR all  nominees  listed  below to serve  until the  Annual  Meeting of
        Shareholders  in the year 2004 as set forth in the Proxy Statement dated
        March  19,   2001   (except  as  marked  to  the   contrary   below--see
        "Instructions"):

                     J. Michael Jarvis

                     Robert Richardson

                     Patrick A. Sherman

|_|   WITHHOLD AUTHORITY to vote for all nominees listed above

(Instructions:  To withhold authority to vote for any nominee, write
that nominee's name in the space provided.)

                        (To Be Completed on Reverse Side)

<PAGE>

2.

In    their  discretion,  the  proxies  are  authorized  to vote upon such other
      business as may properly come before the meeting.

      THIS  PROXY  WILL BE  VOTED AS  SPECIFIED.  IN THE  ABSENCE  OF
SPECIFICATIONS, THIS PROXY WILL BE VOTED FOR ITEM 1.

      SHAREHOLDERS  SHOULD MARK,  SIGN AND DATE THIS PROXY AND RETURN
IT PROMPTLY IN THE  ENCLOSED  POST-PAID  ENVELOPE.  THIS PROXY MAY BE
REVOKED AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ITS EXERCISE.

DATED:                                    ________________


                                           Signature or Signatures

                                              (Please  sign exactly as your name
                                          appears on this  proxy.  If shares are
                                          issued  in the  name  of  two or  more
                                          persons, all such persons should sign.
                                          Trustees, executors and others signing
                                          in a  representative  capacity  should
                                          indicate  the  capacity  in which they
                                          sign.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN K. ZESTOS,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-10644

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

FIRST MORTGAGE LOAN SERVICING,

Defendant.

______________________________________ /

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On July 17, 2009, the Court dismissed Plaintiff John K. Zestos’s complaint sua sponte.

Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed a complaint alleging that Defendant First Mortgage Loan Servicing

wrongfully foreclosed on his property. After receiving a report and recommendation that the Court

dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court permitted Plaintiff multiple opportunities to amend the

complaint and cure the defect. See dkt. # 8, 10, 12. Plaintiff, however, did not timely provide a

proposed amended complaint that stated a claim under federal law and the Court dismissed the

complaint. See dkt. # 14, 18. On July 20, 2009, Plaintiff requested the Court reconsider the

dismissal of the complaint. Dkt. # 19.

This District’s local rules permit a party to request reconsideration of an order. See E.D.

Mich. LR. 7.1(g). However, “the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that

merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable

implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the

parties have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition

of the case.” Id. 7.1(g)(3). A “palpable defect” is a defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable,

manifest, or plain. Fleck v. Titan Tire Corp., 177 F. Supp. 2d 605, 624 (E.D. Mich. 2001). 

1:09-cv-10644-TLL-CEB Doc # 21 Filed 07/31/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 116
-2-

The instant motion again emphasizes Plaintiff’s “diligent efforts” to retain counsel. Despite

this contention, Plaintiff has not identified why he did not comply with the Court’s orders or

demonstrate a defect in the Court’s dismissal of the complaint. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Dkt. # 19] is

DENIED. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 31, 2009

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on July 31, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cv-10644-TLL-CEB Doc # 21 Filed 07/31/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 117
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofChancery Resources, Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Geoffrey Gachallan, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| |    

Dated this 27thday of July, 2007.

GEOFFREY GACHALLANGeoffrey GachallanChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer




































---