alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Holland and Another *v.*Butler.

*Saturday, December*28.

An unincorporated company cannot be sued in the name of the firm.

APPEAL from the *Franklin*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

*Butler*brought an action of assumpsit against the appellants on a promissory note, which was signed “ *W. J.*Holland.” Neither the writ, nor the declaration, shows the proper names of the persons composing the firm of *W. J. Holland.*On the day to. which the cause was set for trial, a motion to quash the writ, and a plea in abatement, were successively overruled by the Court. The defendants then filed a general demurrer to the *256declaration, which was also overruled, and judgment was gjven for the plaintiff.

*G. Holland,*for the appellants.

*J. Ryman,*for the appellee.

The law is now well settled, that where there are several co-defendants, the true proper name of each of them must be given with certainty; Gould’s Plead, chap. 5, sec. 70; 1 Chitt. Pl. 286 ; and this Court has by repeated decisions recognized this to be the law. But the defendant in error, to sustain the judgment of the Circuit Court, relies upon the case of *Wooster*v. *Lyons, November*term, 1838, in which it is decided that if a person execute a written promise by a wrong name, he must be sued in that name. That doctrine is undoubtedly correct, but the cases are not analogous. Here the note is signed by the true co-partnership name of the. defendants, a. name which they may assume for the purpose of trade, but a name by which they can neither sue nor be sued in a Court of justice. Had they executed the note by any other than their true co-partnership name, as for example *J. Holland fy Co.,*on a suit against the defendants, trading in the name of *J. Holland Co.,*founded on that promise, they would be estopped from denying *that*to be their true co-partnership name. In such case, the principle recognized in *Wooster*v. *Lyons*would apply. But even in that case, the proper1 names of the persons making the promise should be stated. *Hays et al.*v. *Lanier et al.,*3 Blackf. 322, and note.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH BATTISICK.

November 17, 1986.

A petition for certification having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having noted that *N.J.S.A.*2C:43-6(b) provides that a period of parole ineligibility may be imposed pursuant to that section only when the sentencing judge is clearly convinced that the aggravating factors present substantially outweigh the mitigating factors;

And the sentencing judge in this matter having imposed a parole ineligibility term notwithstanding his determination that the aggravating factors present did not substantially outweigh the mitigating factors;

*41It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for an appropriate resentencing of defendant.

Jurisdiction is not retained.
****

## Derek Henderson

----

 Hmm. A bit about   myself. I am a software developer by trade, married for 3 years to Hayley. No   kids as of yet. We live in Toronto, but wish we were living in New Brunswick   (where we are both from).

        As for passions, in the winter I curl (an obscure sport, youprobably have never heard or seen), and in the summer I bike a fair bit.I am fortunate that I can bike to / from work.

        The other main thing I love is cooking. I hate the dishes butlove how you can combine things to make tasty meals. If I ever get tiredof computers that's probably where I'll end up.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PHILIP M. ROCK.

April 28, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF**

**INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our reports dated February 27, 2008, accompanying the consolidated financial statements of Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. and subsidiaries as ofDecember 31, 2007 and 2006 and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2007, and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of AtlasPipeline Partners, L.P. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. on Form S-8 (FileNo. 333-125566, effective June 6, 2005) and on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-127961, effective September 7, 2005, File No. 333-135704, effective September 12, 2006, and File No. 333-146586, effective November 28,2007. 

**/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP**

Tulsa, Oklahoma

February 27, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5                                    
<MULTIPLIER>                                          1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                    MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1.00
<CASH>                                                7,953
<SECURITIES>                                          6,246
<RECEIVABLES>                                           179
<ALLOWANCES>                                              0
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     15,083
<PP&E>                                               14,728
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (11,131)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       19,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 8,269
<BONDS>                                              14,019
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                 18
<OTHER-SE>                                           (3,030)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         19,277
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        875
<CGS>                                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      8,789
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     (807)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (8,489)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (8,489)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (8,489)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             0
        


</TABLE>
#### Columbia *v.*Davis.—In error.

*Thursday, July*2.

*SCIRE FACIAS*against bail for the stay of execution, commenced before a justice of the peace, and taken by appeal to the Circuit Court. The cause was submitted to the Court, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The record stated that there was an issue in the cause, but did not show what it was. *Held,*that it must be presumed that the cause was tried on the general issue, the statute giving to the defendant the benefit of such plea in suits commenced before a justice of the peace. *Held,*also, that the transcript of the justice’s judgment from which the appeal was taken, and the *scire facias*in the cause, on which alone the plaintiff relied, did not sustain the cause of action. See *Burger et al.*v. *Becket,*6 Blackf. 61.
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

          - [Disaster Declaration # 12279 and # 12280] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

 Amendment 5. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Iowa (FEMA—1930—DR), dated 08/14/2010. 

*Incident:*                         Severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes.                     

*Incident Period:*                         06/01/2010 through 08/31/2010.                     

*Effective Date:*                         10/13/2010.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         11/12/2010.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         05/16/2011.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of IOWA, dated 08/14/2010 is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to 11/12/2010. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) 

James E. Rivera, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010-26781 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Burge *v.*Dishman.

*Wednesday, May*27.

A suit on a promissory note cannot be defeated by showing a cotemporaneous verbal agreement, varying the terms of the note.

Evidence of accord and satisfaction is admissible, in assumpsit, under the general issue.

APPEAL from the *Greene*Circuit Court.

Dewey, *J.*

Dishman sued *Burge*and *Fox*before a justice of the peace. The cause of action was a promissory note for a sum of money payable at a particular time. The process was returned “not found” as to *Fox. Burge*filed two special pleas before the justice in substance alike. They allege that *Burge*executed the note with *Fox*as his surety; that, at the time of making the note, it was agreed by *Dish-man, Fox,*and *Burge,*that *Fox,*within a week, should give *Dishman*another note with surety for the same debt, and that *Dishman,*upon his doing so, should give up the note secured by *Burge ;*that this agreement was the condition on which *Burge*signed the note; that *Fox*did give *Dishman*another note with security, but that the latter refused to *273give up the note signed by *Fox*and *Burge.*The defendant was also entitled to the general issue. There was no answer to the special pleas. The case was appealed. In the Circuit Court, *Burge*offered to prove, by parol, an agreement corresponding substantially with that set forth in the pleas, but the Court rejected the testimony, and rendered final judgment for *Fishman.*

*C. P. Hester*and *R. W. Thompson,*for the appellant. ■

*A. Kinney*and *8. B. Gookins,*for the appellee.

The rejection of the parol evidence forms the only point in the case, and on that point we agree with the Circuit Court.

By the defence set up, *Burge*attempted to vary the terms of the note by a cotemporaneous verbal agreement. The parol condition that the note should be given up on the giving another note with surety, was entirely inconsistent with the written promise made by *Fox*and *Burge*to pay a sum of money on a given day. Such a defence is clearly not allowable. *Hoare et al.*v. *Graham et*al., 3 Camp. *57. Odam*v. *Beard,*1 Blackf. 191, and note. Had *Burge*offered evidence that a second note had been accepted by *Fishman*in discharge of the first, it would have been admissible to prove accord and satisfaction, under the general issue; but that defence would have derived no strength from the parol contract made at the time of giving the first note.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed, with 1 *per cent.*damages and costs.
# KSC-2009-3267

JOHNSON SPACE CENTER, Houston -- STS127-S-002 (10 Oct. 2008) --- Attired in training versions of their shuttle launch and entry suits, these seven astronauts take a break from training to pose for the STS-127 crew portrait. Pictured on the front row are astronauts Mark Polansky (right), commander, and Doug Hurley, pilot. Remaining crew members, pictured from left to right, are astronauts Dave Wolf, Christopher Cassidy, Canadian Space Agency's Julie Payette, Tom Marshburn and Tim Kopra, all mission specialists. Kopra is scheduled to join Expedition 20 as flight engineer after launching to the International Space Station with the STS-127 crew.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-ksc-2009-3267/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenOctober 10, 2008ProducerKSCSize1920x1536pxPIA NumberKSC-2009-3267The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Apr 18, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
Exhibit 10.29

| |  | Magna Entertainment Corp.                                                            
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                                                                                      
| |  | 337 Magna Drive
Aurora, Ontario,
Canada L4G 7K1
Tel (905) 726-2462
Fax (905) 726-7167

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

July 1,
2003

Mr. Blake
Tohana
68 Killdeer Crescent
Toronto, Ontario M4G 2W8

Dear
Blake:

Re: Employment with Magna Entertainment Corp.

Upon
acceptance by you, this letter will confirm the terms and conditions of your employment with Magna Entertainment Corp. (the "Corporation"), as follows:

---

2

---



3

---



4

---



5

---

If
the terms of employment as set out in this agreement are acceptable to you, please sign and date three copies of this agreement in the place indicated and return two fully signed originals to the
attention of Sam Sniderman at the address for the Corporation first listed above by July 8, 2003. Upon execution by you, this agreement replaces any prior written or oral employment
contract or other agreement concerning remuneration between you and the Corporation or any member of the MEC Group.

Yours
very truly,

/s/    Jim
McAlpine

Jim
McAlpine
President & Chief Executive Officer

*
* * * *

I
hereby accept the terms and conditions set out above and acknowledge that this agreement contains all of the terms and conditions of my employment with Magna Entertainment Corp. and that no other
terms, conditions or representations other than those within this letter form part of this agreement. I also confirm that I am not subject to any restrictions (contractual or otherwise) arising from
my former employment that would prevent or impair me in carrying out my duties and functions with the Corporation.

|     |  |             
|---- |  | ------------
|Date |  | Blake Tohana

6

---
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 28, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

 

DAVID JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VERA JACKSON,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 09-1561

ORDER

Before TACHA, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Jackson purports to seek review of a November 14, 2009 order

denying a writ of mandamus, and an order of January 14, 2010 pertaining to a

three-judge panel. However, there is nothing on the district court’s docket to

indicate that such orders were entered. Although Mr. Jackson also seeks review

of the district court’s order of September 9, 2009 (directing him to file his

complaint on the court-approved form and cure other deficiencies), that order

became final and appealable on October 21, 2009, when the district court entered

its judgment of dismissal. Mr. Jackson’s notice of appeal from the September 9th

Appellate Case: 09-1561 Document: 01018358044 Date Filed: 01/28/2010 Page: 1
-2-

order was not filed until January 21, 2010 and was therefore untimely. See Fed.

R. App. P. 4 (a) (1) (A) (notice of appeal due within 30 days). 

These jurisdictional defects render moot the remainder of Mr. Jackson’s

appeal which seeks review of the district court’s order denying leave to proceed

in forma pauperis in this appeal. 

Based on the above, this appeal is DISMISSED. Mr. Jackson’s motion to

correct clerical errors in his response to this court’s order to show cause is

granted. His motion to incorporate additional district court orders and pleadings

into this appeal is denied. 

This dismissal pertains only to appeal no. 09-1561. Mr. Jackson’s other

appeal (09-1519) remains pending with this court. 

APPEAL DISMISSED

ELISABETH SHUMAKER, Clerk of Court

by:

Christine Van Coney

Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-1561 Document: 01018358044 Date Filed: 01/28/2010 Page: 2
EXHIBIT 32.02
 
  a)
    
    The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended January 31,
2009 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934; and
 b)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By
    
    /s/ Peter L. BuzyPeter L. BuzyChief Financial Officer
#### Blanton *v.*The State.

The keeper of a billiard table, though he do not play on it himself for money nor suffer others to do so, yet if, for a stipulated compensation per game, he allow any persons to use it, he is liable to an indictment.

*Monday, May*31.

ERROR to the *Tippecanoe*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

Indictment for keeping a billiard table for the purpose of gain. Trial by the Court with the consent of the parties upon the plea of not guilty. Judgment of conviction.

It was proved on the trial, that the defendant below was the keeper of a billiard table at the time and place laid in the indictment; that he did not play upon it himself for money, nor suffer others to do so, but allowed any persons to use it for amusement, for which he^ received a stipulated compensation per game.

It is contended, that upon this evidence the defendant should have been acquitted.

The prosecution is founded upon the 64th section of the statute relative to crime and punishment, which provides, that every keeper of certain establishments (among which is a billiard table) “for the purpose of winning or gaining money, or any other article or property of value, either directly or indirectly, shall upon conviction thereof be fined,” &c. R. S. 1838, p. 218. The offence created by this enactment consists in keeping the prohibited establishment for the purpose of direct-or indirect gain. The evil designed to be remedied or prevented, is the corruption of public morals inseparable from a general habit of gaming, or consequent upon spending too much time and money upon mere amusement. A billiard • table open to all comers — admitting the *561possibility of excluding gaming from it — is a strong temptation to the perversion of valuable time by the young unreflecting portion of the community, and if paid for by the game at a price less than that denoted by the evidence in this cause, may be the means of squandering no inconsiderable amount of money. The most mitigated effects of such an establishment cannot but be deleterious to the morals of the neighbourhood in which it is situated. We think the evidence brings the case within the letter and spirit of the statute, and that the defendant was rightfully convicted.

*J.*Pettit, for the plaintiff.

*W. J.*Peaslee, for the state.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cornelius Stefan TICA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-30218.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*800Argued and Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 8, 2003.

Mark A. Rosenbaum, AUSA, Karen L. Loeffler, AUSA, Susan Lindquist, Esq., USAK-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mary Jane Haden, FPDAK-Federal Public Defender’s Office (Anchorage), Anchorage, AK, for D efend ant-App ellant.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Cornelius Tica appeals from a jury conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Specifically, he appeals from the district court’s denial in part of his motion to suppress evidence. Because the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here. Tica argues that the officers did not have reasonable suspicion to justify seizing him; his final consent to search the hidden compartment in his luggage was involuntary; and if his earlier consent to a “quick search” of the suitcase were voluntary, the officers exceeded the scope of that consent.

A search or seizure without a warrant is presumed unreasonable unless the search falls within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. *Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,*412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). But a warrantless search may be reasonable if the officers obtained voluntary and intelligent consent from the citizen. *Id.*Because we find that Tica consented voluntarily at each stage in his encounter with the police, we affirm the district court’s denial of Tica’s motion to suppress evidence.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.