alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Glen Anglin *v.*Howard S. Grimm, A. H. Heine Implement Company.

[No. 3-573A49.

Filed August 22, 1973.

Rehearing denied September 25, 1973.

Transfer denied February 18, 1974.]

*Glen Anglin,*Pro-se, for appellant.

*Carl J. Suedhoff, Jr., Hunt, Suedkoff, Borror, Eilbacher & Lee,*of Fort Wayne, for appellee, *Howard S. Grimm.*

On Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss

Per Curiam.

This cause is pending before the Court on the Motion of the appellee Howard S. Grimm, to Affirm and Alternative Motion to Dismiss. Said motion alleges as cause therefor, *inter alia*numerous defects in the appellant’s brief, as follows:

a) Appellant’s Brief has failed to state with any degree of cogency whatsoever a statement of issues presented for review, in violation of Rule 8.3(A) (3) of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure.

b) Appellant’s Brief fails to state and set forth in any understandable form or with any degree of accuracy a statement of the case including the nature of the case, the course of proceedings, its disposition in the court below, and a verbatim statement of the judgment in violation of Rule 8.3 (A) (4) of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure.

c) Appellant’s Brief does not contain any understandable or accurate statement of facts relevant to the issues presented for review with appropriate reference to the transcript, in violation of Rule 8.3(A) (5) of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure.

*363d) Appellant’s Brief contains no summary of argument, in violation of Rule 8.3 (A) (6) of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure.

e) The Appellant has violated Rule 8.3(A) (7) of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, in that he has failed to set forth specifically each error assigned in the motion to correct errors and in the argument applicable thereto, has failed to include his contentions with respect to issues presented, reasons in support thereof, citations to authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied upon, .and a clear showing of how the issues and contentions in support thereof relate to the particular facts of the case under review.

We have examined the appellant’s brief and find that ap-pellee’s allegations are true. We further observe that the purported brief is composed of various statements and affidavits of the appellant, none of which present any issue upon which this court could grant relief.

The appellee’s motion to affirm is therefore sustained, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Note. — Reported at 300 N.E.2d 137.
Exhibit 4.8


 





Extension Agreement for Loan Contract



 


Party A (Borrower): Shanxi Jinxuan Investment
Co., Ltd.


 


Party B (Lender): Guo Xiangyang


 


Unless otherwise stated, all terms used
in this Extension Agreement for Loan Contract (“this Agreement”) shall have definitions set out in the Loan Contract
dated September 9, 2017 by and between Liulin County Junhao Coal Coke Trading Co., Ltd. (the former name of “Shanxi Jinxuan
Investment Co., Ltd.”) and Guo Xiangyang (hereinafter referred to as the “Original Contract”), the Extension
Agreement for Loan Contract dated December 20, 2017, and the Extension Agreement for Loan Contract dated January 1, 2019.


 


Whereas,


 


The loan term specified in Paragraph 1
of Article 2 of the Original Contract is about to expire. Based on the principle of mutual benefit and reciprocity, Party A and
Party B enter into this Agreement through amicable consultation and in light of the actual situation to amend certain clauses of
the Original Contract.


 


I. Amendment is made to the following clauses
as follows:


 


Article 2 Loan Term and Loan Disbursement


 


1. The original loan term that starts on
September 10, 2017 and ends on December 31, 2019 is extended to end on December 31, 2020.


 


II. This Agreement, after taking effect,
shall constitute an integral part of the Original Contract, and shall have the same legal force with the Original Contract.


 


Except as expressly amended by this Agreement,
remaining provisions of the Original Contract shall remain in full force and effect.


 


In case of any conflict between this Agreement
and the Original Contract, this Agreement shall prevail.


 


III. This Agreement is made in duplicate,
with each party holding one (1) copy of the same legal effect, and shall become effective as of the date it is signed and stamped
by the parties.


  


 


Party A: Shanxi Jinxuan Investment Co.,
Ltd.


 


Party B: Guo Xiangyang


  


 


Date of Signing: January 1, 2020


 








    	 	1
# Sitemap

## November 01, 2007

- Home
- Sitemap
- 2007
- 11
- November 01, 2007

            - Cassini Significant Events 10/24/07 – 10/30/07
#### Tate v. The State.

*Monday, November*18.

An indictment charging the defendant with winning the sum of five dollars by a wager, &e., is not sustained by proof that he won the promissory note for five dollars of the person with whom he bet.

ERROR to the *Fayette*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for winning “the sum of five dollars,” by a wager on an election. Plea, not guilty. Trial by the Court, and judgment of conviction. The evidence was that the plaintiff in error “ bet five dollars,” and that he and the person with whom he wagered made notes payable to each other for that amount, and placed them in the hands of a stake-holder. When the result of the wager was ascertained, which was in favour of the plaintiff in error, he and the other bettor received from the stake-holder both notes; one was destroyed, and the other delivered to the winner.

We think the Circuit Court erred in convicting the plaintiff in error upon this evidence. If the charge in the indictment, that the accused won “the sum of five dollars,” has any legal meaning át all, it is that he won five dollars in money. This charge is not established by the testimony. The parties to the bet staked each his promissory note to the other for five dollars. The notes were the things bet, and admitting the plaintiff in error won his adversary’s note, that does not sus*175tain the charge of winning money. The allegation and the proof are too variant to justify the finding of guilty.

*C. B. Smith,*for the plaintiff.

*W.-Quarles,*for the state.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed, and the proceedings subsequent to the issue set aside. Cause remanded, &c.
EXHIBIT 32




CERTIFICATIONS 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 Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc.  (“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, each 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 his knowledge:




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 operation of the Company.









Date:  November 9, 2010
By:
/s/ Bradley I. MeierName:
Bradley I. MeierTitle:
President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:  November 9, 2010
By:
/s/ George R. DeHeerName:
George R. DeHeerTitle:
Chief Financial Officer
#### Alley *v.*Neely.

*Thursday, November*21.

To charge one with being a thieving person, or to say of him that he stole and ran away, is actionable.

The plaintiff’s praying judgment by default on the first ’count of a declaration, after argument of a demurrer to the second count, does not entitle the defendant to a continuance.

In actions of slander, the jury are to determine the amount of damages from the facts proved, and not from the opinions of witnesses. ■

ERROR to the *Rush*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

*Neely*brought an action of slander against *Alley.*There are two counts in the declaration. 1. That the defendant had charged the plaintiff with perjury. 2. That the defendant had said to and of the plaintiff, “You are a d-d thieving son of a b-h; you stole and ran away.” “1 can prove that you are a d-d thieving son of a b-h, and that you stole and ran • away.” General demurrer to the second count. The plaintiff joined in demurrer, and after argument of the demurrer, prayed judgment by default on the first count. The defendant demanded a continuance which was refused. An interlocutory judgment was then rendered, stating that the Court being sufficiently *201advised *of the premises*overrule the demurrer, &c., and consider that the plaintiff recover his damages, &c., but as the damages *in the declaration set forth*are unknown, a writ of inquiry is awarded, &c.

*J. S.*Newman, for the plaintiff.

*C. H. Test*and *C. B. Smith,*for the defendant.

The damages were assessed at 400 dollars, and there was judgment accordingly.

There can be no doubt but that the demurrer to the second count was properly- overruled. The first part of each set of words is actionable, independently of the residue. The adjective *thieving*imports an act committed, and not merely an inclination to commit it. To charge one with being a *thieving*person is charging him with being guilty of stealing. *Brittridgels*case, 4 Coke’s Rep. 19.—*Osborn*v. *Poole,*1 Lord Raym. 236.—Stark, on Slander, 64. Besides, the residue of the words contains a direct charge of larceny.

It is contended that the plaintiff, by praying judgment on the first count after argument on the demurrer, gave the defendant a right to a continuance. There is no- reason for this objection. 'Whether the default was taken before or after the argument on the demurrer could make no difference to the defendant.

Another objection is, that the defendant was not permitted, on the execution of the writ of inquiry, to ask a witness if the plaintiff had sustained any damage in the country from the speaking of the words. There is no error in this part of the cause. In slander, neither party can ask a witness his opinion, whether or not the plaintiff has sustained damages generally in consequence of the slanderous words. The jury are to determine the amount of damages from the facts proved, and not from the opinions of witnesses. *Herrick*v. Lapham, 10 Johns. 281.

There was one other objection made below, but it is not insisted upon here. There is nothing in it. . -

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5

<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                    Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                      Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                                  6,068
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           3,295
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                             3,012
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       13,261
<PP&E>                                                 15,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                          7,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         24,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   4,076
<BONDS>                                                11,578
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  183
<OTHER-SE>                                              7,622
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           24,081
<SALES>                                                 3,298
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        3,298
<CGS>                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        8,818
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         37
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (5,645)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (5,645)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (5,645)
<EPS-BASIC>                                              (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (.24)



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Stephen A. Thorington, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Plains Exploration & Production Company, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Plains Exploration &Production Company; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain 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 thisreport; 

 

3. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

 

b. evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation; and

 

c. disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s control over financial reporting; and 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          10,876
<SECURITIES>                                     6,192
<RECEIVABLES>                                      733
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,914
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,346
<PP&E>                                           4,538
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,919
<BONDS>                                            966
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               93
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,668
<SALES>                                          2,943
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,943
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,590
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,464)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,464)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,464)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.47)
        


</TABLE>
# 			Benjamin Alvin Drew		

Headquarters, Washington D.C.

## 			News & Articles		

See All News

Article20 Min Read
Honoring African Americans in Space

## 			Discover More Topics From NASA		

								SCaN News							

								Research Programs							

								Flight Programs							

								Apollo 1 Resources
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT LEBECK.

February 6, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.2



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION - CFO



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Exploration & Production Company (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, Stephen A. Thorington, 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:



To the best of my knowledge,
after reasonable investigation:



| | (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: November 3, 2005.



/s/ Stephen A. ThoringtonStephen A. ThoringtonChief Financial Officer




The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document 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 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 Annual Report of Pacific Land and Coffee Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending March  31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tyrus C. Young, Chief Financial  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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 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:  July 14, 2009
By  /s/ Tyrus C. Young
-----------------------------
     Tyrus C. Young
     Chief Financial Officer
    (Principal Financial Officer)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, 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.

January 29, 2014

d0122 

# Order

Clerk January 29, 2014

147022 & (15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147022

COA: 314613

Wayne CC: 09

- 011889

- 01

- FC

MORRIS LEE HOUSTON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal the February 28, 2013 order of the Court of Appeals is

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented

should be reviewed by this Court. The application is denied without prejudice to the

defendant asserting his ineffective assistan ce of counsel claims in a motion for relief from

judgment under MCR 6.508(D).
Exhibit 10.1

    

    
    

    

    
      
        


    

     

    

    

    

    

    

    

    
      
        


    

     
      

      

      
        
          


      

       
        

        

        
          	
                   By:

                	
                   /s/ Steven A. DeMartino

                  

                
	
                   

                	
                  Steven A. DeMartino 

                  

                
	
                   

                	
                   

                
	
                  Title: 

                  

                	
                  President, CFO, Treasurer and Secretary