alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### R. Sansing v. *J.*D. Risinger.

(No. 3269.)

Appeal from Lamar Comity.

Opinion, by

Willson, J.

§ 718. *Landlord and tenant; distinction between a sub-tenant and an assignee of a lease; case stated.*San-sing rented land to one Parrish, and was to receive as rent one-fourth the cotton raised on the land. Parrish engaged one Talford to assist him in cultivating the land, and agreed to give him in payment for his labor ten acres of the cotton raised. After the cotton was laid by, Talford’s ten acres were designated by agreement between him and Parrish. Parrish paid Sansing all the rent due, except for the ten acres set apart to Talford, it being agreed between Parrish and Talford that the latter should pay the rent due for said ten acres. Talford sold the ten acres of cotton to appellee Risinger, and the latter took possession thereof. Sansing sued his tenant, Parrish, to recover the rent for said ten acres of land, and sued out a distress warrant which was levied upon the cotton that had been raised upon said ten acres of land, and said cotton was sold under order of the court and the proceeds applied to tlae payment of said rent and costs. Risinger brought this suit against Sansing to recover the value of said cotton and damages, and recovered judgment for $271.50, the value of the cotton, and for costs. It was and is claimed by appellee that Talford was a sub-tenant, and that appellant had no right to take the property of the sub-tenant to pay the rent due by the tenant, Parrish. As a proposition of law this is correct. *[Ante,*§ 79.] But in our opinion, Talford was not a sub-tenant within the meaning of that term. He was a mere employee of Parrish. He took no particular portion of the land to-cultivate. It was not until after the cultivation of the crop had been completed that any particular part of the-land was set apart to him, and out of the crop upon that he agreed to pay the rent due upon it to Sansing. We-*627regard the contract between Parrish and Talford, not'as a snb-letting of the ten acres of land, but as an assignment by the former to the latter of the crop upon said land in payment of the latter’s wages, subject to the rent claim of Sansing. There is a wide distinction in the law between an assignee of a lease and a sub-tenant. The former is personally liable to the landlord for all the covenants and conditions imposed upon the lessee by the lease, which run with the land, while the latter is liable only to the lessee, who is alone responsible to the landlord. [Wood’s Land. & Ten. § 94.] Our conclusions upon the facts and the law are, that the cotton was subject to Sansing’s rent claim, and was legally seized and sold under his distress warrant, and that Risinger was not entitled to recover in this action.

May 13, 1885.

Reversed and remanded.
**EXHIBIT
      31.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14**


**OF
      THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**





I,
      Edouard A. Garneau, Chief Executive Officer of Cardinal Communications, Inc.
      (the "Company"), certify that:





I
      have
      reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Cardinal Communications,
      Inc.





Based
      on
      my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual
      Report.





Based
      on
      my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
      in the report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
      results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods,
      presented in the report.





I
      am
      responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
      (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and
      have:





(a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which the periodic report is being prepared;





(b)
      [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained
      in
      SEC Release 34-47986]; and





(c)
      disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the Company's internal control
      over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting;
      and





I
      have
      disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
      financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and to the audit committee of
      the
      Board of Directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent function):





(i)
      all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over
      financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
      Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
      information; and





(ii)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the Company's internal control over financial
      reporting.




Dated: October 5, 2007/s/ Edouard
              A. GarneauName:
              Edouard A. GarneauChief Executive
              Officer
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice: (10-118)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Astrophysics Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Subcommittee reports to the Science Committee of the NAC. The Meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting from the scientific community and other persons scientific and technical information relevant to program planning.

# DATES:

Friday, October 29, 2010, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Local Time.

# ADDRESSES:

                        This meeting will take place telephonically and by WebEx. Any interested person may call the USA toll free conference call number 800-779-1474, pass code APS, to participate in this meeting by telephone. The WebEx link is                         *https://nasa.webex.com/​nasa/​j.php?​ED=​137482372&​UID=​0&​PW=​NNTQ4NTM2NWMy&​RT=​MiMxMQ%3D%3D, meeting number 998 634 250, and password APS_Oct2010.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The meeting will be open to the public. The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:

—Update on the James Webb Space Telescope.

—Update on the Agency's Near-Term Plans for Responding to the Astro2010 Decadal Survey.

It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

Dated: September 30, 2010.

P. Diane Rausch,

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. 2010-25103 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
EX-10.4.B






Exhibit 10.4(b)




FIRST AMENDMENT

OF

U.S. BANCORP 2007 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN




     The U.S. Bancorp 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) is amended in the following respects:


1. SPECIFIED EMPLOYEE. Effective for determinations of who is a specified employee on and after
January 1, 2009, Section 2(dd) shall be amended to read as follows:




     (dd) “Specified Employee” shall mean an employee who is a specified employee for purposes of
Code Section 409A as defined in the separate document entitled “U.S. Bank Specified Employee
Determination.”


2. SAVINGS CLAUSE. Save and except as expressly amended above, the Plan shall continue in full
force and effect.
Specimen Stock Certificate evidencing shares of common stock



 Exhibit 4.1 
  

	
	










 

 
 Sterling Bancshares, Inc. 
 The corporation is authorized to issue shares of more than one class and to issue shares of preferred stock in series. The Articles of
Incorporation on file with the Secretary of State of Texas have denied the preemptive right of shareholders to acquire unissued or treasury shares, and further set forth all of the designations, preferences, limitations and relative rights of the
shares of each class authorized to be issued, the variations in the relative rights and preferences of the shares of each series to the extent they have been fixed and determined, and the authority of the board of directors to fix and determine the
relative rights and preferences of subsequent series. The Corporation will furnish a copy of such Articles of Incorporation or its By-laws to the record holder of this certificate without charge on written request to the Corporation at its principal
place of business or registered office. 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this
certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
 TEN
COM—as tenants in common 
 TEN ENT—as tenants by the entireties 
 JT TEN—as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common 
 UNIF GIFT MIN ACT — Custodian— 
 (Cust) (Minor) 
 Under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
 Act 
 (State)

 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
 For Value Received,             hereby sell, assign and transfer unto

 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER 
 IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
 (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS,
INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) 
 Shares of the capital stock represented by the within certificate, and do hereby
irrevocably constitute and appoint 
 Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with
full power of substitution in the premises. 
 Dated            

 NOTICE: 
 THE SIGNATURE(S) TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME(S) AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. 
 (SIGNATURE) 
 (SIGNATURE) 
 THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS,
SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE PROGRAM). PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15. 
 SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED BY:
Order entered January 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00507-CR

FLOR DEMARI BALCARCEL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MB10-33676C

ORDER

This Court granted court reporter Pamela Durke-Sweeny an extension of time until 

August 4, 2014 to file the reporter’s record. By notice dated August 4, 2014, Ms. Durke-Sweeny 

was notified that the reporter’s record she attempted to electronically filed was rejected because 

Volume 4 was not text searchable and the exhibits were not bookmarked. She was directed to 

file a corrected document with three days. To date, Ms. Durke-Sweeny has neither filed a 

corrected reporter’s record nor communicated with the Court regarding the status of the 

reporter’s record. Nor has appellant communicated with the Court regarding the reporter’s 

record or the status of the appeal.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding 

whether appellant has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, 

indigence, or for any other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.

 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 32

                               HMN FINANCIAL, 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 of HMN Financial, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
McNeil, President of the Company, and Jon Eberle, Senior Vice President and CFO
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.


Date: November 4, 2005                  /s/ Michael McNeil
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Michael McNeil
                                        President/Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)


                                        /s/ Jon Eberle
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Jon Eberle
                                        Senior Vice President/Chief Financial
                                        Officer
                                        (Principal Financial Officer)
#### R. F. Gibson v. John R. Giles.

(No. 3124.)

October 22, 1884.

Appeal from Milam County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

*(Transferred from Austin.)*

§ 402. *Appeal bond from justice's to county court; misdescription of judgment in.*The judgment in justice’s court was, that the plaintiff Gibson take nothing by his suit, and that defendant recover his costs of plaintiff. The judgment was dated December 11, 1883. Gibson appealed, and his appeal bond described the judgment appealed from as one rendered on the 1st day of December, 1883, “ that plaintiff take nothing by his suit, and that defendant recover of plaintiff all costs of suit, amounting to *three hundred dollars.”*In the county court appellee moved to dismiss the-appeal because the bond misdescribed the judgment. *Held:*The motion to dismiss the appeal should have been sustained. The appeal bond misdescribes the judgment rendered in the cause, both as to *date*and *amount.*It is not the casé of an imperfect or incomplete description of the judgment, but of a material misdescription, which cannot he regarded as a clerical mistake. [W. & W. Con. Eep. §§ 383, 491, 525, 811.] Eeversed and remanded, with instructions to the county court to dismiss the appeal.

Eeversed and remanded.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0397. VINCENT STEWART WHITAKER v. THE STATE.

After a bench trial, Vincent Stewart Whitaker was convicted of family violence

simple battery and three counts of cruelty to children. Whitaker filed a motion for

new trial, and the trial court denied the motion as to the simple battery charge but

granted the motion as to the remaining counts. Whitaker thereafter filed his notice of

appeal. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

The order granting in part and denying in part the motion for new trial is not

a final judgment within the meaning of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (1). MTW Investment

Company v. Alcovy Properties, Inc., 223 Ga. App. 230, 231 (447 SE2d 395) (1996);

Rockdale Awning &c. Co. v. Kerbow, 210 Ga. App. 119, 121 (2) (435 SE2d 619)

(1993). The order is thus interlocutory, and the appeal from such an order requires

compliance with the interlocutory appeal procedure of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Because

Whitaker failed to follow this procedure, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his

appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

October 04, 2018

10/04/2018
#### OPELOUSAS TRUST AUTHORITY d/b/a Opelousas General Health System, et al. v. CLECO CORPORATION and Cleco Power, L.L.C.

No. 2011-CC-2204.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 23, 2011.

In re Cleco Corporation et al.; Cleco Power LLC; — Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 10-C-1179; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CW 11-00348.

Granted and remanded to court of appeal for briefing, argument and opinion.

KNOLL, J., would deny.
The Board of Directors (the Board) of Home Federal Savings Bank has reviewed
your performance evaluation performed by selected members of the Board. In
connection therewith and pursuant to Section 1 of your contract on May 23,
2000, the Board determined to extend your employment contract until the May
Board meeting, 2003.


                                   Home Federal Savings Bank

                                   By:  /s/ M.F. Schumann
                                      --------------------------------
                                      M.F. Schumann
                                           Director

                         EMPLOYEE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

     I hereby acknowledge receipt of this notice of extension of the above-
referenced contract and accept the extension of the term of such contract.

                         EMPLOYEE



     Dated: 5/23/00           By:   /s/ James B. Gardner
            ---------              --------------------------
                                   James B. Gardner
#### Kenneth S. TUCKER, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Petitioner, v. Christopher J. JOHNSON, Respondent.

No. 1D12-3363.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 30, 2012.

Jennifer Parker, General Counsel, and Beverly Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

*1290PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is GRANTED. The lower tribunal’s order granting the motion to dismiss the detain-er in case number 2008-CF-4491A, rendered June 11, 2012, is QUASHED, and this matter is REMANDED with directions to allow the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss the detainer prior to ruling on the motion.

No motion for rehearing of this opinion will be entertained by this court, and mandate in this cause shall issue immediately.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.