alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Missouri Pacific R’y Co. v. Will Levi.

(Nos. 3193 and 3194.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Pinch & Thompson, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

*30§ 9. *Common carriers; not liable for delay in shipment caused solely by the lawless and irresistible violence of “strikers.”*These suits were brought to recover damages from the railroad company for delay and failure to deliver in reasonable time apples shipped over said road, whereby they beqame injured and were wholly lost. Defendant, the railroad, among other defenses pleaded that, if plaintiff’s goods were damaged by delay, the same was occasioned by the interference with the operation of its road by “strikers ” and their confederates. Appellee, plaintiff below, excepted specially to this plea of defendant, for the reason that the same was insufficient in law, which exception was sustained by the court, and the plea was stricken out. In this the court erred. In the recent case of Railroad Co. v. Tisdale, decided by the commissioners of appeals, and adopted by the supreme court, it was held, in a cause of action similar to the one under consideration, that the railroad company, the defendant, might show in defense that it could not deliver the freight in a shorter time, owing to interference with the operation of the road by strikers ■ and their confederates. [See 74 Tex. 8.] This court has held that, “where the delay is caused merely by the refusal of the employees of the carrier to perform their duties as such, the carrier is liable for the delay; but where such employees suddenly refuse to work, and are discharged from or abandon their employment, and their places áre promptly supplied by other competent men, who are prevented from doing duty by strikers, by the use of lawless and irresistible violence, the carrier is not responsible for the delay caused solely by such violence, provided he has used reasonable efforts and diligence to suppress such interference.” [3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 441, citing Railroad Co. v. Hazen, 84 Ill. 36, and Geismer v. Railroad Co., 102 N. Y. 563.] Defendant’s plea in this particular was full and explicit in its statement of the facts connected with the strike which occasioned the *31delay, and the means it had used to suppress and obviate the same. If proven as alleged, the defense would have been a good and complete answer to plaintiff’s suits.

October 26, 1889.

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 85 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

  By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the 
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was 
granted to:
  (The following Members (at the request of Mrs. Schroeder) to revise 
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Owens, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mrs. Schroeder, for 5 minutes, today.

                          ____________________
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: THE NOMINATION PETITIONS OF
PEARLINA S. STORY AS A DEMOCRATIC
CANDIDATE FOR THE STATE
REPRESENTATIVE IN THE 24TH
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT

OBJECTIONS OF: NICOLE M. SYLVESTER, LOREAL RJ SNELL, AND CHRISTOPHER
PAUL SANDVIG :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 18 WAP 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 21st day of April , 2022

, the order of the Commonwealth Court

,
dated April 19, 2022, granting the P etition to S et A side Nominating Petitions of Pearlina

S. Story

, is AFFIRMED

.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry
J. White, Jr., 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 the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.



Dated:  October 17, 2003                            /s/ HARRY J. WHITE, JR.
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                         Harry J. White, Jr.



         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. and will be retained by Silverleaf
Resorts, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.49


 


Summary
of Compensation Arrangement between Agilent and the Non-Employee Directors


 


Effective
as of March 1, 2009, each of Paul N. Clark, Robert J. Herbold, Robert L.
Joss, Koh Boon Hwee, Heidi Kunz, David M. Lawrence, M.D. and A. Barry Rand, the
non-employee directors of Agilent, receive annually (a) $75,000 in cash
which is paid quarterly; (b) $75,000 in value of a stock option; and (c) $75,000
in value of deferred shares of Agilent common stock. Any newly appointed
director receives $130,000 in value of deferred shares of Agilent common stock,
pursuant to the 1999 Non-Employee Director Stock Plan. The stock options and
the deferred shares vest quarterly over one year.


 


In
addition, non-employee directors who serve as the chairperson of a Board
committee are entitled to a “committee chair premium.” Specifically, the
chairperson of each of the Compensation Committee and the Nominating/Corporate
Governance Committee, provided that such person is not the Non-Executive
Chairman, shall, on an annual basis, receive an additional ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00) in cash. The chairperson of the Audit and Finance Committee of the
Board, provided that such person is not the Non-Executive Chairman, shall, on
an annual basis, receive an additional twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) in
cash. The chairperson of any other Board committee, provided that such person
is not the Non-Executive Chairman, shall, on an annual basis, receive an
additional five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) in cash.


 


Each
member of the Audit and Finance Committee shall, on an annual basis, receive an
additional ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in cash which shall be made in a
lump sum payment as soon as practicable following the Initial Payment Date with
respect to the Plan Year.


 


The
Non-Executive Chairman, James G. Cullen, receives an Annual Retainer that
consists of (i) an option to purchase shares of common stock in an amount
equivalent to $75,000, (ii) $260,000 in cash, and (iii) $75,000 in
value of deferred shares of Agilent common stock. The Non-Executive Chairman is
not eligible to receive any committee chair premiums. The stock options and the
deferred shares vest quarterly over one year.
#### John H. Lewis v. J. B. Hutchison.

(No. 6463.)

Appeal from Parker County.

Hood, Lanham & Stephens, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§79. *Cleric of court; if a party to suit cannot issue process, etc.*Appellee, Hutchison, sued appellant, Lewis, and Thomas A. Wythe in the county court of Parker county upon a promissory note. At the time of the institution and during the pendency and trial of the suit said Wythe was the clerk of said court, and as such filed the petition, issued citation, etc. Lewis moved to quash the citation served upon him because Wythe was disqualified to issue the same. This motion was overruled, and judgment was rendered in favor of appellee against *119appellant and Wythe for the amount sued for and costs. Wythe does not appeal. It is provided by statute that “in all cases wherein any district or county clerk in this state is, or shall hereafter be, a party to any pending or proposed suit, motion or proceeding in their respective courts, the district or county judge in whose court the same may be pending or proposed shall, either in term time or in vacation, upon application of any person interested or of his own motion, appoint a clerk *pro tem.*for the pupose of such suit, motion or proceeding.” [Gen. Laws, 20th Leg., Reg. Sess., p. 102, ch. 109, § 1.] This provision of the statute seems to us to be mandatory, and we must hold that the proceedings in this case in the county court are void because said clerk was disqualified to perform the duties of such clerk in said cause. As to the filing of the petition in the cause, it is within the power of the trial court to have it filed *nunc pro tune*by a clerk qualified to act in the case. There is in the record an agreement in writing which was filed in the cause in the trial court. This agreement is signed by E. A. Hutherson, attorney for plaintiff, and by Thomas A. Wythe, one of the defendants, and dispenses with the appointment of a clerk *pro tem.*in the cause, and consents that said Wythe should issue all processes, etc., in the cause, and stipulates that defendants would not take any advantage of plaintiff in this particular. This agreement, however, was not signed by appellant, Lewis, and it is not made to appear that he is in any way bound by it.

April 19, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
Department of the United States Air Force LogoBiography
                  United States Air ForceMAJOR GENERAL DONALD L. LAMBERSONMajor General Donald L. Lamberson is assistant deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Washington, D.C.
General Lamberson was born in 1931, in Dublin, Ind. He graduated from high school in Cambridge City, Ind., in 1949 and earned a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from Purdue University in 1953. He received a master's degree in nuclear engineering in 1961 and a doctorate in aerospace engineering in 1969, both from the Air Force Institute of Technology.
He was commissioned through the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps program and entered active duty in March 1954. During early assignments he served as a communications officer with the Air Defense Command at Geiger Field, Wash., and as a weapons officer assigned to the Strategic Air Command at Royal Air Force Station Lakenheath, England.
In March 1961 he was assigned to the Air Force Weapons Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., as a nuclear weapons research officer. He was chief of the laboratory's X-Ray Group and performed several nuclear weapons effects shots before returning to the Institute of Technology to begin his doctoral studies in July 1965.
General Lamberson returned to the Air Force Weapons Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base in August 1967 to do doctoral research. In March 1969 he was assigned to lead the Air Force's high-energy laser program, and in July 1972 became chief of the Advanced Radiation Technology Office, where high-energy laser technology and prototypes were developed and tested.
He transferred to the Armament Development and Test Center at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., in April 1978 and served as deputy for development and acquisition of conventional armament. The general remained in this position through transition to the Armament Division, Air Force Systems Command, at Eglin in October 1979.
General Lamberson was assigned as deputy assistant for directed energy weapons, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Washington, D.C., in April 1982. The general served as the focal point for the president's initiatives on defense against ballistic missiles. In October 1983 he became assistant deputy chief of staff for research, development and acquisition, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. He assumed his present duties in March 1987 as part of the Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act.
His military decorations and awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit and Air Force Commendation Medal. He also has received the Air Force Outstanding Research and Development Officer Award, and the Air Force Association's Theodore von Karman Award and Citation of Honor.
He was promoted to major general Jan. 1, 1982, with date of rank Aug. 1, 1978.
(Current as of September 1988)Department of the Air Force Logo
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets and the Statements of Consolidated Operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,420
<SECURITIES>                                     1,104
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,487
<ALLOWANCES>                                       256
<INVENTORY>                                     18,737
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,993
<PP&E>                                          17,115
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 237,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,966
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     208,759
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   237,416
<SALES>                                         25,519
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,519
<CGS>                                           18,277
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,496
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,126
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,851)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,746)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,105)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,105)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4751

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

SHAWN DEWAYNE RUCKER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston, 

District Judge. (5:03-cr-00097-1) 

Submitted: July 10, 2009 Decided: August 17, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Matthew A. Victor, VICTOR VICTOR & HELGOE LLP, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States 

Attorney, Miller Bushong, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Shawn Dewayne Rucker appeals the district court’s 

order revoking his supervised release, rejecting his claim that 

he was entitled to a two-level reduction in his offense level 

based upon the amendments to the crack cocaine sentencing 

guidelines, and imposing a twenty-one-month sentence upon 

revocation of supervised release. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Rucker, 

No. 5:03-cr-00097-1 (S.D.W. Va. July 15, 2008); see also United 

States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 588-89 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 

129 S. Ct. 1924 (2009). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 13.1
 Certifications of the CEO AND CFO  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
  By:
    
    /s/ GEOFFREY B. GENOVESEName:
    
    Geoffrey B. GenoveseTitle:
    
    Chairman, President andChief Executive OfficerBy:
    
    /s/ J. JOSEPH LEEDERName:
    
    J. Joseph LeederTitle:
    
    Vice President Mergers and Acquisitionsand Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, James S.J. Manuso, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of SuperGen, Inc.

By:

/s/ JAMES S.J. MANUSOName:

James S.J. ManusoTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)


I,
Michael Molkentin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
SuperGen, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
SuperGen, Inc.

By:

/s/ MICHAEL MOLKENTINName:

Michael MolkentinTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


---



QuickLinks
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.

# SUMMARY:

                        Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         notifying the public that the agency has made such a submission.                    

# DATES:

Submit comments on or before March 8, 2010. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.

*Copies:*                         Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer.                    

# ADDRESSES:

                        Address all comments concerning this notice to:                         *Agency Clearance Officer,*                         Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and                         *OMB Reviewer,*                         Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Title:*                     Impact of Broadband Speed and Prime on Small Business.                

*SBA Form Number:*                     N/A.                

*Frequency:*                     On Occasion.                

*Description of Respondents:*                     Small Businesses using Broadband Internet services.                

*Responses:*                     1,200.                

*Annual Burden:*                     250.                

Jacqueline White,

Chief, Administrative Information Branch.

[FR Doc. 2010-2411 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### STATE ex rel. Michael LeBLANC v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0521.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

*1257In re LeBlanc, Michael; — Plaintiff; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated February 3, 2012, and from 19th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 04-91-0739; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1978.

Reconsideration denied.