alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 16

- 00848

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 2014

- 10394

Style: Lion Copolymer Holdings , LLC

v

. Lion P olyme r s, LLC

Date motion filed * : July 27 , 2018

Type of motion: Motion for Rehearing

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? YES NO

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other:

_____________________________________

Judge’ s signature: /s / Sherry Radack

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd.

Date: __ December 21, 2018

___
#### AMERICAN FURNITURE CO., Inc., v. PATTERSON.

No. 4867.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Nov. 2, 1934.

Mabry & Carstarphen, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Chandler & Chandler, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

MILLS, Judge.

On December 23, 1929, plaintiff sold to defendant a bill of goods amounting to $179.40, and on June 18, 1930, another of $192.70, a total of $372.10. From the date of the first purchase, small payments were periodically made. On July 7, 1932, $64 was paid and on the 19th of the same month a last payment of $20. The balance remaining is $160.10, to recover which plaintiff brings this action, coupled with a prayer for a writ of sequestration to protect .its vendor’s lien. The record fails to show that a writ ever issued. There is no note of evidence in the record which, however, does show the filing of the sworn itemized account by plaintiff.

Defendant pleaded the prescription of three years, as provided in article 3538 of the Civil Code, and an answer amounting to a general denial.

The condition of the record and the brief of counsel reveal that defendant’s sole reliance on appeal from a judgment for plaintiff, as prayed for, is the prescriptive plea. As suit was not filed until July 14,1933, it is apparent that the plea should be sustained unless plaintiff is correct in its contention that prescription was interrupted by the payments.

It will be noted that this is not a running-account, but one of two separate and distinct sales. Imputing the payment to the oldest account, we find it paid in full and a balance of $32.60 to be applied to the second purchase, dated June 18, 1930. This $32.60 is part of the two payments made July 7 and 19-, 1932, less than three years after the second purchase. The only question then is whether or not a payment on an account constitutes an acknowledgment of it and interrupts prescription.

Article 3520 of the Civil Code provides that prescription ceases to run when the debtor makes acknowledgment of the right of the person whose title they prescribed.

A partial payment is an acknowledgment of the debt and interrupts prescription. Holmes Co., Ltd. v. Hiller, 7 La. App. 590; Hirsch v. Montgomery, 8 La. App. 243; Canal Bank & Trust Co. v. Bank of Ascension, 140 La. 465, 73 So. 269.

*175The issuance of a check, though not paid, suffices. Victory Gravel Co. v. Dyer, 17 La. App. 123, 134 So. 701.

The case of Sleet v. Sleet, 109 La. 302, 33 So. 322, relied upon by defendant, is not in point. Block Co. v. Papania, 121 La. 683, 46 So. 694; Bennett-Brewer Hardware Co. v. Wakeman, 160 La. 407, 107 So. 286.

We find the judgment of the lower court correct, and it is accordingly affirmed.
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Accountants

 

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-74660, 33-74662, 33-74664, 33-78406, 33-88780, 333-04268, 333-22973, 333-22975, 333-24545, 333-56359, 333-56361, 333-73409, 333-73411, 333-33114, 333-33116, 333-56790, 333-56792, 333-33110, 333-82790, 333-82808, 333-103299 and 333-113083) of MapInfo Corporation and Subsidiaries of our report dated October 22, 2004 relating to the financial statements and financial schedule, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

PricewaterhouseCoopersLLP

November 29, 2004
Exhibit
      32.1




Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350


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








I,
      Juhani
      Taskinen, Chief Executive 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 June 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/
                Juhani
                TaskinenJuhani
                Taskinen, Chief Executive Officer





August
      10, 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 32.4



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 Annual Report of The Pantry, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending September 25, 2003, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 9, 2003, as amended by Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2004, and Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel J. Kelly, Vice President 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, to my knowledge,
that:



|(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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Daniel J. KellyDaniel J. Kelly Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate: June 29, 2003




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.
Exhibit 23.1 

**Consent of Independent Auditor**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-39478 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Koppers Industries, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan, the Koppers Industries, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan and the Koppers Industries, Inc.Restated and Amended Stock Option Plan of our report dated February 6, 2004 (except for Note 4, as to which the date is February 27, 2004), with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Koppers Inc., included in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003 in the following Registration Statements: 

 

Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

March 15, 2004
NO. SCWC-11-0000618 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I DONNA C. EDWARDS, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. GLENN K. MIZUKAMI, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant, and AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE CO., et al., Defendants.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. CAAP-11-0000618; CIV. NO. 10-1-2441) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, and Duffy, JJ., Circuit Judge Border, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, and Circuit Judge Garibaldi, in place of McKenna, J., recused)

Petitioner/defendant-appellant Glenn K. Mizukami's application for writ of certiorari, filed on December 8, 2011, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 10, 2012. /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Patrick W. Border /s/ Colette Y. Garibaldi Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-11-0000618 10-JAN-2012 08:55 AM
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APR 11, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-15407

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency Nos. A97-640-059

A97-640-060

RICARDO JOSE MARTIN CALDERON,

SADDYS EDIFLOR MANTEROLA CARRASQUEL,

Petitioners, 

versus 

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent. 

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

_________________________

(April 11, 2007)

Before BLACK, BARKETT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ricardo Jose Martin Calderon, and on behalf of his wife, Saddys Ediflor

Manterola Carrasquel, (collectively “Petitioners”), have filed a petition for review
2

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) order denying their motion to

reconsider and reopen its prior order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”)

final order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United

Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”).

Petitioners, natives and citizens of Venezuela, arrived in the United States on

March 21, 2001, and filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal,

as well as for protection under the CAT, on September 24, 2003. The IJ denied

their application, finding that Petitioners were statutorily ineligible to apply for

asylum because their application was untimely, and that Martin’s testimony was

not credible. On May 31, 2006, the BIA adopted and affirmed the decision of the

IJ. Petitioners filed a motion to reconsider and reopen with the BIA, which the

BIA denied. Martin and his wife now petition us for review. 

Reviewing the record, we cannot conclude that the BIA abused its discretion

when it denied Petitioners’ motion to reconsider, because the motion merely

reiterated the evidence and arguments previously presented to the BIA. 8 C.F.R §

1003.2(b)(1); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6). We also cannot conclude that the

BIA abused its discretion when it denied Petitioners’ motion to reopen because the

motion failed to include evidence that was “material and was not available and
 Petitioners also argue within their petition that the BIA erred in its May 31, 2006 order 1

affirming the IJ’s order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. Because

Petitioners did not file an appeal of the BIA’s May 31, 2006 Order within the requisite time, we

have no jurisdiction to consider these arguments.

3

could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R

§ 1003.2(c)(1); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7).1

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.
#### Rita THOMAS; Debra Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. Rita Thomas; Debra Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 02-2246, 02-2292.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 20, 2003.

Decided March 27, 2003.

Rita Thomas; Debra Jones, Appellants Pro Se. Marylin E. Culp, Kilpatrick, Stockton, L.L.P., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

*610Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In No. 02-2246, Rita Thomas and Debra Jones seek to appeal an order of the clerk of the district court awarding costs to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (Wells Fargo), following judgment in Wells Fargo’s favor. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1), the clerk may tax costs to the prevailing party. Here, the clerk fixed costs in the amount of $21,869.16, but reduced that amount by seventy-five percent based on Thomas and Jones’s good faith and inability to pay, for a final award of $5,467.29. In No. 02-2292, Wells Fargo cross-appealed this reduction.

“On motion served within 5 days thereafter, the action of the clerk may be reviewed by the court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). This court has held that failure to make a timely motion under the rule constitutes a waiver of the right to such review. *Gary v. Spires,*634 F.2d 772, 773 (4th Cir.1980). Neither party moved for review in the district court, and instead filed notices of appeal directly to this court. Therefore, they have waived their right to review in the district court, and there is no order subject to our review. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292 (2000). We dismiss both appeals for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Wells Fargo’s motion for summary disposition as moot. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.22


AGREEMENT NUMBER: 2015003


ADDENDUM #6


QUOTA SHARE REINSURANCE AGREEMENT


made between


OMEGA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY


(hereinafter referred to as the "Reinsured")


and


WYNDHAM INSURANCE COMPANY (SAC) LIMITED,


in respect of its Segregated Account AX (hereinafter referred to as the "Reinsurer")


WHEREAS the Reinsured and the Reinsurer entered into a Quota Share Reinsurance Agreement effective January 1, 2015 (the "Agreement");


WHEREAS the Agreement has been amended five times previously.


AND WHEREAS the Reinsured and the Reinsurer now desire to further amend the Quota Share Reinsurance Agreement. This Addendum #6 to the Agreement (the "Amendment") will take effect as of January 1, 2020.


In consideration of the covenants and agreements contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


Amendment of Article 8


Effective January l, 2020, Article 8 of the Quota Share Reinsurance Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety, and the following shall be substituted in its place:


ARTICLE 8 CEDING COMMISSION


The Reinsurer will allow the Reinsured a "Ceding Commission" equal to the sum of:


		
	A.
	100% of the commission charged by the producing Broker, plus;


		
	B.
	4.00% of gross premium on the subject Business, representing reimbursement for premium taxes, plus;


		
	C.
	$1,450,000 for the calendar year ended December 31, 2020, representing the Reinsured's "Fronting Fee"




The Ceding Commission shall be calculated and paid monthly. and shall include a monthly amount of $120,833.33 for the Fronting Fee component of the Ceding Commission.
 
The Fronting Fee component of the Ceding Commission is intended to represent a flat amount of $200,000 plus approximately 1.25% of gross premium on the estimated volume of subject Business. The Fronting Fee component of the Ceding Commission will be renegotiated annually, no later than 90 days prior to 











the calendar year end, or any time during the year when projected gross premiums on the subject Business vary by 15% from the estimated volume of subject Business.


Counterparts
This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.


Ratification of Agreement
Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and are hereby ratified by the Parties.




SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2019; 
For the Reinsured, OMEGA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY


	
	
	 

	/s/ Matthew P. Cook




By: Matthew P. Cook, President + CEO 




SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2019; 
For the Reinsurer, WYNDHAM INSURANCE COMPANY (SAC) LIMITED, in respect of its segregated account AX


	
	
	 

	/s/ Andrew McComb
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Certification by 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 Annual Report of The Pantry, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark R. Bierley, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary 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, to my knowledge, 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.
 
 
 /s/    Mark R. BierleyMark R. BierleySenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryDate: December 14, 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.
STATEMENT OF MANAGING DIRECTOR


PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Richard J. DeGarmo, Managing Director of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:





The Company’s Form 10-Q Report for the nine months ended September 20, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Richard J. DeGarmo


Richard J. DeGarmo, Managing Director


Dated: May 24, 2010
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4340

To prohibit, in connection with the termination of Army activities at the

Stratford Army Engine Plant, the expenditure of Federal funds to cover

the costs of relocating a Government contractor located at that installation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 3, 1996

Ms. DELAURO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on National Security

A BILL

To prohibit, in connection with the termination of Army

activities at the Stratford Army Engine Plant, the expenditure of Federal funds to cover the costs of relocating a Government contractor located at that installation.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF RELOCATION

4 COSTS FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR,

5 STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT.

6 In connection with the termination of Army activities

7 at the Stratford Army Engine Plant, Stratford, Connecti8 cut, pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realign-
2

•HR 4340 IH

1 ment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law

2 101–510), none of the funds available to the Department

3 of Defense may be used to relocate, to pay the costs of

4 relocating, or to make payments under any contract relat5 ing to the relocation of, any Government contractor lo6 cated at that installation.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 649 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 649

  To authorize the collection of fees for expenses for triploid grass 
        carp certification inspections, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 24, 1995

 Mrs. Lincoln introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize the collection of fees for expenses for triploid grass 
        carp certification inspections, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COLLECTION OF FEES FOR TRIPLOID GRASS CARP CERTIFICATION 
              INSPECTIONS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service (referred to in this section 
as the ``Director''), may charge reasonable fees for expenses to the 
Federal Government for triploid grass carp certification inspections 
requested by a person who owns or operates an aquaculture facility.
    (b) Availability.--All fees collected under subsection (a) shall be 
available to the Director until expended, without further 
appropriations.
    (c) Use.--The Director shall use all fees collected under 
subsection (a) to carry out the activities referred to in subsection 
(a).
                                 <all>
```