alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 13,062.

#### State of Louisiana vs. Columbia Debenture Company, Limited.

/\ -¡^ APPEAL from the Civil District. Court for the Parish of Or-*\J*leans. *King,*-/.

*M. J. Cunningham,*Attorney General, *(F. E. liainold*and *SHfft and Madison,*of Counsel), for the State* of Louisiana and August M. Pen-edict, Liquidator, Plaintiffs and Appellees.

*Ernest, T. Floranc.e*for the Defendant and Appellant

Argued and submitted May 18, 1899.

Opinion handed down June 22, 1899.

Judgment amended and rehearings refused June 30, 1899.

*1819Tlie opinion of tlie coui't was delivered by Blanchard, J.

On the application for rehearing by Breaux, J.

Blanchard, J.

For the reasons assigned in the oiiinion of the court in t'he case of the State of Louisiana vs. The Louisiana Debenture Company, Limited, No. 13,105 on the docket of the court, and in the case of the State of Louisiana vs. The New Orleans Debenture Company, Limited, No. 13,110 on the docket of the court — this day decided — it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from, in so far as the same decrees the nullity and forfeiture of defendant company’s charter, he affirmed, and that the said judgment, in so far as it appoints a receiver or liquidator, be reversed, reserving -to the State of Louisiana and all other parties in interest all rights under the law relative to the appointment of a receiver or liquidator to take charge of, liquidate and settle the affairs of said corporation — costs of hoth courts to be borne by defendant.

Müniíob, J., recused.

On Application for a Rkiiuarino.

Breaux, J.

Judgment heretofore, rendered by us is set aside, and instead, we now affirm the judgment of the District Court issuing the injunction in the following words:

“Let a writ of injunction issue1 herein as prayed for and according to law.

“New Orleans, December 23rd, 1.898.”

Signed by -the judge *a quo.*

"We do not think that a rehearing is necessary, and make the change without further argument or hearing.

Rehearing refused.

Monroe, J., takes no part.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 657

AN ACT

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power

electric projects in the State of Arkansas.Act applicable to the construction of three hydro-
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 657

AN ACT

To extend the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of three hydroelectric projects

in the State of Arkansas.

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

•HR 657 EH

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES.

2 Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of

3 the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) the Federal En4 ergy Regulatory Commission, upon the request of the li5 censee for FERC Project No. 4204, 4660, and 4659 (and

6 after reasonable notice), is authorized, in accordance with

7 the good faith, due diligence, and public interest require8 ments of such section 13 and the Commission’s procedures

9 under such section, to extend the time required for com10 mencement of construction for the project for up to a max11 imum of 3 consecutive 2-year periods. This section shall

12 take effect for the project upon the expiration of the exten13 sion (issued by the Commission under such section 13)

14 of the period required for commencement of construction

15 of such project.

Passed the House of Representatives November 13,

1995.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6080 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6080

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 5420 Kavanaugh Boulevard in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the ``Ronald 
                       A. Robinson Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 26, 2021

  Mr. Hill (for himself, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Womack, and Mr. Westerman) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 5420 Kavanaugh Boulevard in Little Rock, Arkansas, as the ``Ronald 
                       A. Robinson Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. RONALD A. ROBINSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 5420 Kavanaugh Boulevard in Little Rock, Arkansas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Ronald A. Robinson Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
or other record of the United States to the facility referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ronald A. 
Robinson Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1
                Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Paradise, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Melvin S. Gordon, as Chief Executive Officer of Paradise, Inc., 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:


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

     2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of
          operations of Paradise, Inc.



       /s/ Melvin S. Gordon            Date:  November 13, 2007
       -----------------------------
       Melvin S. Gordon
       Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
#### Frederick S. Myers v. Beakes Dairy Company.

Application granted. Order signed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1682

JAMES B. SPENCER; DORIS E HOLT, Estate of Doris E. Holt,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

RODNEY LAIL, a/k/a Keith Lail, a/k/a Rodney Keith Lail; IRENE 

SANTACROCE; RICKY STEPHENS; MARGUERITE STEPHENS; 

NICHOLAS C. WILLIAMSON; DAN GREEN,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

HORRY COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; 

SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION; DAVID 

CALDWELL; LARRY GAINEY; MICHAEL PRODAN; MARK KEEL; 

JOHNNY MORGAN, Horry County Police Chief ,

 Defendants - Appellees,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; N JOHN BENSON; PHIL CELESTINI; 

PAUL GARDNER; DAVID M HARDY; KERRY HAYNES; THOMAS 

ISABELLA, JR.; MICHAEL KIRKPATRICK; THOMAS MARSH; MONTE 

DELL MCKEE; MATTHEW PERRY; GEORGE SKALUBA; CHRIS 

SWECKER; NOEL HEROLD; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS; 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT; UNKNOWN JOHN DOES,

 Defendants,

and
2

JAY SALEEBY, Aiken, Bridges, Nunn, Elliott & Tyler, P.A.; SOUTH 

CAROLINA STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD,

 Movants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (3:11-cv-00977-MGL)

Submitted: February 21, 2019 Decided: March 20, 2019

Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John P. Batson, JOHN P. BATSON, LAW OFFICE, Augusta, Georgia, for Appellants. 

Eugene H. Matthews, RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A., Columbia, 

South Carolina; James M. Saleeby, Jr., AIKEN BRIDGES ELLIOTT TYLER & 

SALEEBY, P.A., Florence, South Carolina; Andrew F. Lindemann, LINDEMANN 

DAVIS & HUGHES, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

James B. Spencer and the Estate of Doris E. Holt appeal the district court’s orders 

adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing the claims against 

some of the Appellees for failure to effect service of process, adopting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing the remaining claims with 

prejudice, and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Spencer v. South Carolina, No. 3:11-cv-00977-MGL (D.S.C. Aug. 30, 2012; Sept. 19, 

2013; Jan. 31, 2014; Mar. 1, 2018; & May 16, 2018). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
ex416form20f.htm



November 30, 2012

















Jeff Gentry


2150 South 1300 East, Suite 350


Salt Lake City, UT 84106







RE: Notice of Termination of Consulting Agreement







Jeff,







Pursuant to Section 6 of the Consulting Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated March 31, 2012, between Peak Minerals Inc. (the “Company”) and Jeff Gentry, we hereby provide thirty (30) days’ notice to terminate the Agreement.  Enclosed, please find your final payment of $7,500 for December 2012 services.







Thank you,







/s/ Lance D’Ambrosio


Lance D’Ambrosio


Peak Minerals Inc.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 20, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50744 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SILVERIO MIRANDA-ESPINOZA, also known as Silverio Miranda, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-84-1-SS

-------------------- Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Silverio MirandaEspinoza raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 5, 2019

s0529

Order 

Clerk

June 5, 2019

158408

In re ROBERT E. WHITTON REVOCABLE

TRUST.

_________________________________________

MOLLY MICHALUK,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 158408

COA: 337828

Oakland PC: 2016-372116-TV

EDDIE WHITTON and RICHARD WHITTON,

Successor Trustees of the ROBERT E. WHITTON

REVOCABLE TRUST,

Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 9, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on the application. MCR 7.305(H)(1). 

The appellant shall file a supplemental brief within 42 days of the date of this 

order addressing whether the Oakland Probate Court had jurisdiction to entertain the 

request for declaratory relief in light of McLeod v McLeod, 365 Mich 25 (1961). In 

addition to the brief, the appellant shall electronically file an appendix conforming to 

MCR 7.312(D)(2). In the brief, citations to the record must provide the appendix page 

numbers as required by MCR 7.312(B)(1). The appellees shall file a supplemental brief 

within 21 days of being served with the appellant’s brief. The appellees shall also 

electronically file an appendix, or in the alternative, stipulate to the use of the appendix 

filed by the appellant. A reply, if any, must be filed by the appellant within 14 days of 

being served with the appellees’ brief. The parties should not submit mere restatements 

of their application papers.

The Probate and Estate Section of the State Bar of Michigan is invited to file a 

brief amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of this issue 

may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 30, 2009 

# Order

June 30, 2009

137400(69) 137407(70)

INSURANCE INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, HASTINGS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMP ANY, FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FRANKENMUTH CASUALTY INSURANCE, WA LTER STAFFORD, JR., and MICHAEL FLOHR, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
and

MICHIGAN INSURANCE COALITION and CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellees, SC: 137400 v COA: 262385 Barry CC: 05-000156-CZ COMMISSIONER, FINANCIAL & INSURANCE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH, Defendant-Appellant.

_____________ _______________ _____________ INSURANCE INSTITUTE OF MICHIGAN, HASTINGS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMP ANY, FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FRANKENMUTH CASUALTY INSURANCE, WA LTER STAFFORD, JR., and MICHAEL FLOHR, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
and

MICHIGAN INSURANCE COALITION and CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Intervening Plaintiffs-Appellants, SC: 137407 v COA: 262385 Barry CC: 05-000156-CZ COMMISSIONER, FINANCIAL & INSURANCE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH, Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ _____________________

On order of the Chief Justic e, the stipulated joint motion for extension of time for the filing of briefs is consid ered and it is GRANTED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23
 
                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
of MapInfo Corporation on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-74660, 33-74662, 33-74664,
33-78406, 33-88780 and 333-4268) of our report dated November 5, 1996, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of MapInfo Corporation and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1995 and
1996, and for the years ended September 30, 1994, 1995, and 1996, which report
is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
 
                                          COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
 
Albany, New York
December 27, 1996
#### THOMAS et *al.*v. MASONIC RELIEF ASS’N.

No. 4284.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit, Second Division.

June 11, 1932.

Charles M. Roberson, of Shreveport, for appellants.

*319Lee, Giimer & Lee, of Shreveport, and Benj. W. Miller, of Bogalusa, for appellee.

STEPHENS, J.

The plaintiffs instituted this suit to recover double indemnity and attorney’s fees on a $500 policy of life insurance in which they were named as beneficiaries. Due proof was made of the death of the insured and judgment was rendered against the defendant, on default, in the sum of $1,050, less a credit of $25.

The defendant applied for, and was granted, orders of devolutive appeal.

The record discloses that, before the filing of the, suit, the defendant admitted that it owed the face value of the policy, and paid $25 on the obligation. The-defendant’s only contention here is that Act No. 310 of 1910, which imposes the penalty of double indemnity and attorney’s fees for delayed payment, applies only to policies or contracts of insurance indemnifying the assured in cases of illness or accident.

The contention is well founded. The act has no application to the policy sued on here, and the judgment should be amended and re-duceci accordingly. Brown v. Continental Casualty Co., 161 La. 229, 108 So. 464, 45 A. L. K. 1521; Canal-Commercial Trust & Savings Bank, Tutor, v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, 155 La. 720, 99 So. 542.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be amended by reducing the amount thereof to $500, with legal interest thereon from August 22, 1929, until paid, less a credit of $25 of date, June 20, 1931. The defendant is cast for the costs in the district court, and the plaintiff for the costs of appeal.
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Company

LWM Corporation (formerly LiveWire Mobile, Inc.)1 Monarch Drive
Suite 203
Littleton, MA 01460

NMS Communications Europe Ltd.200 Brook Drive
Green Park
Reading, Berkshire RG2 6UBUK

NMS Communications Europe S.A.S.Immeuble Pericles
144, Avenue Roger Salengro
92370 Chaville, France

NMS Communications International, Inc.1 Monarch Drive
Suite 203
Littleton, MA 01460

NMS Communications Securities Corporation1 Monarch Drive
Suite 203
Littleton, MA 01460

Openera Technologies, Inc.1 Monarch Drive
Suite 203
Littleton, MA 01460

---



QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of Michael Ackerman, Deceased. Sadie Ackerman, Appellant; Antony Interranto, Respondent.

Second Department,

December 30, 1908.

Will—alterations after execution—evidence sustaining probate of altered will.

Erasures, interlineations and additions made to a will after its execution do not change the will unless it is re-executed with all the statutory formalities, and the will should he probated as though alterations had not been made.

A decree probating a will with alterations will be affirmed where it appears that they were made .in the handwriting of the notary who drew the will and he testified that he did n'ot after execution have possession or make changes, even though there was some oral evidence that the alterations were made after execution.

*585Appeal by Sadie Ackerman, the contestant, from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court of the county of Kings, entered in said Surrogate’s Court on the 14th day of September, 1907, admitting to probaté an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of Michael Ackerman, deceased.

*Harry W. Mack,*for the appellant.

*Jerry A. Wernberg,*for the respondent.

Gaynor, J.:

The law of the case is that erasures, interlineations and additions made to a will after its execution do not change the will unless made with all the formalities necessary to a will, but the will has to be probated as though they had not been made *(Quinn*v. *Quinn,*1 Thomp. *&*Cook, 437; *Lovell*v. *Quitman,*88 N. Y. 377). It would probably have to be found on the oral evidence in this case that the erasure and addition in the 8th clause of the will were made after the execution by the testator, but upon inspection of the will it appears that they were made by the hand of the notary who drew the will, and he testifies that he did not have possession of the will and made no changes in it after its execution. The words originally were, *“*The balance of my cash deposits with the Germania Savings Bank of Brooklyn, H. Y.”, is devoted to a burial plot, monument and funeral expenses. A line was drawn through the words “ The Germania Savings ” and an “ s ” added to the word “ Bank ”, so as to make the provision cover the deposits in all of the banks instead of in one.

The decree should be affirmed.

Jenks, Hooker, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court of Kings county affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 31.4

Certification

I, Michael M. Larsen, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Gardner Denver, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2012; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                                             
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Date: April 15, 2013 |  | /s/    Michael M. Larsen                    
|                     |  | Michael M. Larsen                           
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer Gardner Denver, Inc.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

**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 P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Joseph A. Molino, Jr., Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, 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/ Joseph A. Molino, Jr.   |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Joseph A. Molino, Jr.       |
| Principal Financial Officer |
|                        |
|                        |
| May 14, 2007                |

 

1

----