alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John T. Knox *et al.,*Pltffs in Error, *v.*Daniel B. Light *et al.,*Defts in Error.

error to franklin.

Where a. plea of tender alone is interposed, but the money is not brought into Court, and the defendants refuse to comply rvitli the order of the Court directing the money to be brought in, the Court will either disregard the plea, or. strike the same from the files of the Court, and enter up judgment, as by default.

This was an action of debt, brought by defendants in error, upon a promissory note, in the Franklin Circuit Court. A plea of tender was interposed, which was disposed of as stated in the opinion of the Court. A judgment was rendered for defendants in error, before Denning, Judge, at the April term, 1850. The defendants below sued out this writ of error.

W. K. Parrish and Casey & Montgomery, for Pltffs in error.

R. E. Wingate, for Deft in Error.

Trumbull, J.

This was an action of debt upon a promissory note. All the questions in the case, arise out of the proceedings upon a plea of tender.

The plaintiffs in the Circuit Court after filing a replication to the plea, to which the defendants demurred, asked and obtained leave to withdraw their replication, and obtained a rule upon the defendants to pay the money into Court as alleged in their plea. The defendants refused to comply with the order, whereupon, the Court disregarding the plea, entered judgment against the defendants. In all this there was no error.

It was clearly within the discretion of the Circuit Court to allow the plaintiffs to withdraw their replication, and enter their motion for a rule upon the defendants to pay the money into Court. When they refused to comply, it would be strange indeed, if they could still have the benefit of their plea of ten■der. To make a tender good, the party must at all times have the money ready, so that the creditor may at any moment receive it, and stop the litigation.

To allow a party to defeat a recovery upon the ground that he had tendered and was then ready to pay the demand against him, when at the same time he refused to pay over the money when requested, would he trifling with the rights of the creditor.

*89The question whether the money was ready in Court, as stated on the plea was not a question of fact, to be determined by the jury, but a question to be determined on inspection by the Court.

When the Court saw that the money was not present and the defendants refused to produce it, it was manifestly right and proper for the Court, either to strike the plea from the files or disregard it altogether.

Judgment affirmed at the cost of the plaintiffs in error.

*Judgment affirmed.*
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D2023

- 1765

_____________________________
L ORI M. M OODY , Appellant,

v.

E DWARD W

. H ORAN , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. James Lee Marsh , Judge

.

May 24, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R OWE , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ.
, concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Lori M. Moody, pro se
, Appellant.

Edward Warren Horan
, pro se, Appellee.
Exhibit 21

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

Name of 100% Owned Subsidiaries and
Jurisdiction in Which Organized



|    |  |                                                        
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|1.  |  | FEI Technologies Inc. (Oregon)                         
|2.  |  | FEI Electron Optics International B.V. (Netherlands)   
|3.  |  | FEI Deutschland GmbH (Germany)                         
|4.  |  | FEI Company Japan Ltd. (Japan)                         
|5.  |  | FEI Trading (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (China)                
|6.  |  | FEI Czech Republic s.r.o. (Czech Republic)             
|7.  |  | FEI Hong Kong Co. Ltd. (Hong Kong)                     
|8.  |  | FEI Company of U.S.A. (SE Asia) P.t.e. Ltd. (Singapore)
|9.  |  | FEI Italia S.r.l. (Italy)                              
|10. |  | FEI Electron Optics B.V. (Netherlands)                 
|11. |  | FEI France SAS (France)                                
|12. |  | FEI Europe B.V. (Netherlands)                          
|13. |  | FEI UK Ltd. (United Kingdom)                           
|14. |  | FEI Europe Ltd. (United Kingdom)                       

Name of
Subsidiaries less than 100% Owned



|   |  |                                                                     
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. |  | Charged Particle Beam Technology Latin America S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
|2. |  | FEI Systems (Thailand) Company, Limited (Thailand)                  
|3. |  | FEI Global Holdings C.V. (Netherlands)
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4165

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1996

Received

AN ACT

To provide for certain changes with respect to requirements

for a Canadian border boat landing permit pursuant

to section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

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

HR 4165 RDS

1 SECTION 1. CANADIAN BORDER BOAT LANDING PERMIT.

2 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later

3 than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,

4 the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commis5 sioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall issue re6 vised regulations for the implementation of section 235 of

7 the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to the

8 requirement that individuals travelling between the United

9 States and Canada by boat obtain a permit which is con10 sistent with the following guidelines:

11 (1) An individual may request a form to apply

12 for the permit through Immigration and Naturaliza13 tion Service offices, the mail, or an internet address.

14 (2) The Immigration and Naturalization Serv15 ice shall establish a toll-free information number to

16 provide information and respond to inquiries regard17 ing the permit, including how to obtain the forms,

18 where to file the forms, and the cost of the permit.

19 (3) In consultation with the chief executive offi20 cers of States where individuals affected by the per21 mit requirement reside, develop alternate procedures

22 for acquiring the necessary permits, including in

23 conjunction with State fishing and boat licenses.

24 (4) In the case of a boat of no more than 65

25 feet in length (including a boat used for commercial

26 purposes) on a trip between the United States and
3

HR 4165 RDS

1 Canada of not more than 72 hours duration, a Unit2 ed States citizen passenger (who is neither an owner

3 nor operator of the boat) need not obtain a permit

4 pursuant to section 235 of the Immigration and Na5 tionality Act if carrying a United States passport for

6 the duration of the trip.

Passed the House of Representatives September 28,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 17, 2014

No. 04-14-00576-CV

ESTATE OF DELFINA E. ALEXANDER, Deceased

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PBA-000133-L2

Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION. Costs of appeal are assessed against appellants.

It is so ORDERED on September 17, 2014.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of September, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ron Kalfus, Chief Financial Officer of MabCure Inc. (the
Company), 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:

|(a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      three month period ended March 31, 2011, and to which this certification
      is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                            

|By:    | /s/ Ron Kalfus                                     | 
|------ | -------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name:  | Ron Kalfus                                         | 
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer                            | 
|       | (Principal Financial and
      Accounting Officer) | 
|Date:  | May 23, 2011                                       | 

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of this Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINDA MARTINSON,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-13552

v. United States District Judge Paul D. Borman

Magistrate Judge Mark A. Randon

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN, CAROL LOVELANDCHERRY, JUDITH LYNCH-SAUER,

 and BONNIE HAGERTY,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

NOTICE TO APPEAR

At a hearing held on April 28, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear on May 24, 2010

at 3:30 p.m. with her newly-retained counsel to state on the record counsel’s appearance in this

matter and his intent to represent Plaintiff throughout the course of these proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 30, 2010
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

April 30, 2010.

s/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             817
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2333
<ALLOWANCES>                                       187
<INVENTORY>                                        680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4167
<PP&E>                                           29078
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6491
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   41632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            14357
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       19996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     41632
<SALES>                                          63666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 67792
<CGS>                                            23453
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    55358
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   179
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3151
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14349)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14349)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14349)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.13)
        

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-62,703] 

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 18, 2008 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Syngenta Inc., Crop Protection Division, Bucks, Alabama. 

The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification (TA-W-59,181), which expires on April 21, 2008. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of January 2008. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying  Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E8-1823 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.59

7th January, 1997.
Mr. C. Balakrishnan,
British Trimmings Ltd.
P.O. Box 46,
Coronation Street,
STOCKPORT,
Chesire, SK5 7PJ

Dear Mr. Balakrishnan,

1997 WAGES & CONDITIONS

         Following the ballot of members, I now confirm acceptance of the offer
made by the company, which is:

         1.       AN INCREASE OF 3.5% ON THE BASIC RATE AND ALL ON EARNINGS
                  INCLUDING BONUSES.

         2.       COMPANY SICK PAY TO AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:-

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         LENGTH OF SERVICE          MAXIMUM PAYMENT IN EACH 12 MONTH PERIOD
         -----------------          ---------------------------------------
         <S>                        <C>
         2 - 5 YEARS                (POUND STERLING)36.00 FOR 4  WEEKS
         5 - 10 YEARS               (POUND STERLING)36.00 FOR 6  WEEKS
         10 - 15 YEARS              (POUND STERLING)38.00 FOR 8  WEEKS
         IN EXCESS OF 15 YEARS      (POUND STERLING)38.00 FOR 13 WEEKS
                                       PLUS (POUND STERLING)19.00 FOR A
                                       FURTHER 13 WEEKS
</TABLE>

         Many thanks for your cooperation and assistance.

Yours sincerely,



/s/ Peter Meharg

P.N. Meharg
p.p. Alf Hitchmough
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 Report of Acquired Sales Corp. a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) I, Gerard M. Jacobs, Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:  a. 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  b. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/ Gerard M. Jacobs Gerard M. Jacobs, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  Dated May 14, 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 09-20402-01

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

PAUL JOHN NUGENT,

Defendant.

/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

This case was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties, Defendant’s offer

of a plea of guilty. (Doc. 28.) Defendant and his counsel appeared before me on February 25,

2010. In open court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirmed Defendant’s consent, and then

advised and questioned Defendant regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Based upon Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND: (1) that Defendant

is competent to tender a plea; (2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently made; and (3)

that the offense to which Defendant pleaded guilty is supported by an independent basis in fact

containing each of the essential elements of the offense. Therefore, I have ordered the preparation

of a presentence investigation report.
2

II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, subject to the Court’s

consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, Defendant’s plea be accepted, Defendant be adjudged guilty and the Court impose

sentence.

III. REVIEW

Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]ithin 14 days after

being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific

written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another

party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). See

also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further

right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Howard

v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638

F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise

others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and Recommendation.

Willis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit

Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR

72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: February 25, 2010 United States Magistrate Judge
3

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date,

electronically served on William Brisbois, Roy Kranz, and Philip Ross, and served on U.S. District

Judge Thomas Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: February 25, 2010 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder
1If the case has not settled by November 17, 2009, the court will likely issue a

non-jury scheduling order, with 90 to 120 days of discovery.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

65 CADILLAC SQUARE JPMC 2006-CIBC14

REO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13299

DTWR, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER SCHEDULING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

On October 19, 2009, the parties in the above-captioned matter appeared,

though counsel, for a scheduling conference. During the scheduling conference,

counsel requested a brief delay of formal discovery proceedings in order to pursue a

settlement to this action. The court is persuaded that the parties will work diligently

toward an amicable resolution of this action and that an adjournment is appropriate

under the circumstances presented. Accordingly, the court will schedule a telephone

conference for November 17, 2009, to determine the progress the parties have made

and whether a further adjournment is necessary.1

 IT IS ORDERED that the October 19, 2009 scheduling conference is

ADJOURNED until November 17, 2009 at 4:00 p.m.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 21, 2009

2:09-cv-13299-RHC-VMM Doc # 18 Filed 10/21/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 440
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-13299.65CADILLAC.SchedulingConference.wpd

2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, October 21, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13299-RHC-VMM Doc # 18 Filed 10/21/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 441