alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### B. Marks *v.*Sol. Schoenfield.

Appeal and Error — Remission from Judgment to Deprive Court of Appeals-of Jurisdiction.

The remission of $2.00 from a judgment is not sufficient to deprive the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction, although it left a balance of less than $50.

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT, C. P. DIVISION.

June 24, 1869.

*Harrison & Bennett, for appellant.*

*Muir & Bijur, for appellee.*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

We do not regard the remission of $2 of the judgment as sufficient to deprive this court of jurisdiction, although it left a balance of less than $50 which could have been collected of the sum adjudged. But it seems to us the evidence is too conflicting and uncertain as to the time for which the appellant should be charged with rent, and at least whether in the settlement of the parties in relation to the purchase money and the execution of the deed the appellee did not flecóme, entitled to claim rent for the house before the 1st of June, 1865, to authorize a reversal of the small judgment rendered by the court on a submission of the law and facts of the case.

The judgment is, therefore, *affirmed.*
#### F. C. Sharp & Wife *v.*James Hackney et al.

Appeal and Error — Reversal of Cause for New Trial — Surprise.

An order was entered by the court, “It is ordered that the issue herein be set for trial on the 3rd day of the next April term.” However on the same day the ease was submitted to the court without due notice to.appellant: Held, to authorize a reversal, and a new trial awarded.

APPEAL FROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT.

April 17, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

On the 17th of October, 1867, the master to whom the case was referred filed his report, to which exceptions were filed on the same day by both parties; and this order was then made: It is ordered that the issue herein be set for trial on the 3rd day óf the next April term.

Without setting aside formally the la.st'named order, the record shows the case was heard on the same day, to-wit: 17th of October, 1867, and the clerk certifies that no order of submission was in fact made, and the exceptions not disposed of. But that the record was sent to the judge after the court adjourned, and the judgment rendered in vacation.

The facts conduce strongly to the conclusion that appellant was not apprised of the submission of the case, and that he and his counsel were not aware that there was any intention to submit the case at that term, and had certainly a right to suppose the case would not be heard before the next- term of the court; arid may' have reasonably supposed from the character of the order recited that the issue referred to was the issue of fact raised by the pleadings, and that it would be tried by a jury, on the day fixed at the next term. But be that as it may, the trial of the case was certainly a surprise to both the appellant and his counsel, and was had when they might well have concluded the cause was continued; and if a trial had been urged in their hearing, they might have made out good grounds for a continuance.

*93*Porter &*Greathouse, *for appellants.*

*U. Turner, for appellees.*

The language of section 465 and 466 of Civil Code, is very broad and comprehensive, conferring juridiction on courts of equity in all cases relating to the settlement of the estates of deceased persons; sufficiently so to embrace this ease, and this court would not feel authorized to interpose, and reverse a judgment of a chancellor merely because he might refuse to refer an issue of fact in'this class of cases to a jury.

But for the reason herein stated, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is -remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
#### Davis *v.*Hubbard & Co.

In error.

*Friday, May*29.

AN unincorporated company cannot sue in the name of the firm. See *Hays et al.*v. *Lanier et al.,*3 Blackf. 322, and note.— *Hughes*v. *Walker et al.,*the present term, *post.*
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-BPV Document 80 Filed 07/14/17 Page 1 of 9
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-BPV Document 80 Filed 07/14/17 Page 2 of 9
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-BPV Document 80 Filed 07/14/17 Page 3 of 9
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-BPV Document 80 Filed 07/14/17 Page 4 of 9
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-BPV Document 80 Filed 07/14/17 Page 5 of 9
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-BPV Document 80 Filed 07/14/17 Page 6 of 9
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-BPV Document 80 Filed 07/14/17 Page 7 of 9
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-BPV Document 80 Filed 07/14/17 Page 8 of 9
Case 4:15-cr-02062-JAS-BPV Document 80 Filed 07/14/17 Page 9 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Anthony Deanda,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04254-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: December 8, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9256 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 1
9 

SpaceX 2 Cargo Manifest

LAUNCH

TOTAL CARGO: 575 kilograms / 1268 pounds

TOTAL CARGO+PACKAGING: 677 kilograms / 1493 pounds

Crew Supplies 81 kilograms / 178 pounds

 Crew care package

 Clothing and hygiene items

 Wet trash bags

 Food

 Operations data files

Canadian Space Agency Experiments 11 kilograms / 24 pounds

 Microflow 

European Space Agency Experiments 11 kilograms / 24 pounds

 Energy

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency Experiments 3 kilograms / 7 pounds

 Bio Paddles

 Stem cells

NASA Experiments 323 kilograms / 712 pounds

 Active GLACIER, Double Cold Bags (2)

 Passive GLACIER, Double Cold Bags (3)

 BRIC

 Cell Bio Tech

 Nanoracks

 CGBA 

 CSLM-3 

 FCF supplies

 MSG supplies

 Seedling Growth

 Wet Lab

 SPICE

 MELFI-EU
10

EVA 3 kilograms / 7 pounds

 Tools

Vehicle Hardware 135 kilograms / 298 pounds

 ECLSS

o CDRA beds

 CHeCS

o AQM (2)

o RSP

o Fundoscope

o ARED ropes/lanyards

o T2 turbo cable

 FCE

o 3.0 AH battery (2)

o SMPA/charger kit

Computer resources 8 kilograms / 18 pounds

 Hard drives

 CD case

 Serial converter

Russian Hardware 0.3 kilograms / 0.7 pounds

 TVIS gyro cable 

 
11

SpaceX 2 Cargo Manifest

RETURN

TOTAL CARGO: 1210 kilograms / 2668 pounds

TOTAL CARGO+PACKAGING: 1370 kilograms / 3020 pounds

Crew Supplies 95 kilograms / 210 pounds

 Crew preference, crew care

 Crew provisions

 Empty food containers

Returning Experiments 660 kilograms / 1455 pounds

Canadian Space Agency 

 Microflow

 VASCULAR 

European Space Agency 

 Energy

 Biolab LSM Pumps

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency 

 Medaka

 Hair

 Stem cells

 HICARI

 EPO

 MIB2

NASA 

 GLACIER

 Double Cold Bags (5)

 HRP

 BCAT

 BRIC

 Cell Bio Tech

 CGBA 

 FCF supplies

 Lego

 MSG gloves
12

 PIG

 SCK

 SPHERES

 VCAM

 EXPRESS Rack Stowage Lockers

 Surplus +4C Ice Bricks

EVA 38 kilograms / 84 pounds

 Ion filter

 Gloves

 Wire tie caddy

 REBA

 ECOKs

 CCAs

 LCVGs

Vehicle Hardware 401 kilograms / 884 pounds

 CHeCS

o TEPC

o Crank handle

o GSCs

o CSA-CP

o CSA-O2

o RSP

o RAMs

o IV Supply Pack

o Top. & Inj. Medications Pack

o Oral Meds Pack

 ECLSS

o H2 Sensor ORU

o ACY Urine Filter Hose Assembly

o Microbial Check Valve ORU

o Control Panel

o Pump Sep. ORU

o CDRA Beds 

o Ion Exchange Bed

o PBAs

o HEPA Filters

o Silver Biocide Kit

 EPS

o UOPs (2)
13

o RPCM III

o RPCM V

 TCTT

o Particulate Filter ORUs (2)

o 2 Double CTBs (Assy. Leftovers)

o CCP & PMM Reloc. Equipment

Russian Hardware 16 kilograms / 35 pounds

 Voltage and current stabilizer
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.1.1

             AMENDMENT #3 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK OPTION PLAN


         The Amended and Restated Restricted Stock Agreement Plan is hereby
amended to provide that a total of 875,000 shares will be issuable thereunder.


         Effective: February 19, 2003.



                                       25
#### O. C. Richardson et al *v.*Bamberger, Bloom & Co.

Damages — Officers Neglect to Execute Process — Instructions.

In a suit against an officer for failure to execute a process to be served, an instruction “It is no excuse for his failure to levy said process without delay that he had in his hands other papers of a less summary character” is held erroneous, without an explanation to the jury of the meaning of “less summary.”

Same — Evidence of Eemoval of Property.

It is error to refuse a defendant proof of the probable cost of removal and taking care of property, where.sued for damages for his dereliction as this would be material to lessening of the damages recoverable.

APPEAL FROM MEADE CIRCUIT COURT.

February 12, 1870.

*531Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

It was appellant’s duty as sheriff of Meade county to execute all legal precepts and process directed to him to execute, with diligence and reasonable promptness, and to enable him to discharge these duties he should have as many deputies as such business would require. And it is the duty of the sheriffs also to apply to the offices of the clerks of the county and circuit courts of their respective counties for precepts directed to them to execute, as frequently as the ordinary business transacted in said offices may require, but' it would be very difficult and impracticable to prescribe how often each day (Sundays excepted) such applications should be made, depending somewhat upon the approach of a circuit court, the usual amount of litigation in the county, etc.

In this view of the case no objection is perceived to instruction No. 1, giving on motion of appellees.

But the second instruction is objectionable. What meaning is to be attached to the expression,

> “It is no excuse for his failure to levy said process without delay that he had in his hands other papers of a less *summary character”*

the jury might not readily have comprehended. We must, however, presume that the court intended by the terms “a less summary character” a particular character of process which did not require as much dispatch, and the necessity for its execution as pressing as the attachment of appellee’s, and while the jury may, and we may assume did, so understand the instruction, still it was erroneous, in not explaining to them what papers, if the sheriff had such, “were less summary,” instead of making them the judges of the character of such papers and process as required the more prompt action.

By another instruction the jury were told that the criterion of damages, if they found for appellees, was the value of the property which Wolf had, less the cost of removing, taking care of, etc., and still when appellant offered to prove the probable cost of removing and taking care of the same, the evidence was objected to and the objection sustained by the court, this was also erroneous; the evidence was material and competent and should not have been refused.

*532
      *Walker, for appellants.*

*Farleigh,*Alexander, *for appellees.*

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial and for further proceedings consistent herewith.
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Gilberto Jimenez-Najera, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

USA, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-15-02565-PHX-GMS

No. CR-14-01418-001-PHX-GMS 

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence under 28 U.S.C. ¶ 2255 and United States Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan’s 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 1, 6. The R&R recommends that the 

Court deny Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence. Doc. 6 at 6. 

The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file 

objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a 

waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 7 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 

6(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is wellCase 2:15-cv-02565-GMS Document 7 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 

Correct Sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, 

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 

magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify 

the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 

magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Magistrate Judge Duncan’s R&R (Doc. 6) is accepted. 

 2. Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Doc. 1) is 

denied. 

 3. Petitioner’s Motion for Award of Relief Requested (Doc. 5) is denied. 

 4. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 5. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the 

event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 13th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-02565-GMS Document 7 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             523
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,070
<ALLOWANCES>                                       812
<INVENTORY>                                      5,303
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,044
<PP&E>                                           6,584
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,775
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,093
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,514
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,775
<SALES>                                         27,506
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,428
<CGS>                                           15,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,924
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,775
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,174
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (1,790)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    642
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                642
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       642
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
        

</TABLE>
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

            Pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002  (18
U.S.C.ss.1350),  the  undersigned,  Jacob  Ferng,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of
FalconStor Software,  Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

            The Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year ended  December
31, 2002 of the Company (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of
Sections  13(a)  and  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934,  and the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                               /s/  Jacob Ferng
                                               ----------------------------
                                               Jacob Ferng
                                               Chief Financial Officer
                                               March 14, 2003
```
Exhibit 35.3
 SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
 CAPITAL ONE MULTI-ASSET EXECUTION TRUST
 
 Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust
 c/o Capital One Funding, LLC
 1600 Capital One Drive, Room 27907-A
 McLean, Virginia 22102
 
 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Capital One Multi-asset Execution Trust for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019 (the “Report”), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Capital One, National Association (the “Servicer”), does hereby certify and represent that:
 
 1.     A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Services Agreement dated as of March 16, 2006, by and between Capital One Bank (USA), National Association and the Servicer (the “Agreement”) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
 
 2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreements in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Servicer Compliance Statement this 27 th day of March 2020.
 
 CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
 By:/s/ ANDREW YOUNGName:Andrew YoungTitle:Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63640-63641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25283]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Air 
Act

    On October 20, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed 
Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern 
District of Oklahoma, in the lawsuit entitled United States v. 
Childress Royalty

[[Page 63641]]

Company, Case No. 14-CV-633-CVE-FHM.
    Childress owned property where mining operations took place at the 
Tar Creek Site. The proposed settlement resolves the United States' 
claims against Childress under Section 107 of CERCLA for recovery of 
response costs incurred and to be incurred at the Site. Under the 
proposed Consent Decree, Childress will pay $810,918.00 to resolve the 
government's claims.
    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on 
the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and 
should refer to United States of America v. Childress Royalty Company, 
Case No. 14-CV-633-CVE-FHM. All comments must be submitted no later 
than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. 
Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         To submit comments:                     Send them to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By email............................  <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1a1a4b3b2bebcbcb4bfa5fcb4b4a2ffb4bfa3b591a4a2b5bebbffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f787829594989a9a929983da929284d992998593b7828493989dd9909881">[email protected]</span></a>.
By mail.............................  Assistant Attorney General, U.S.
                                       DOJ-ENRD, P.O. Box 7611,
                                       Washington, DC 20044-7611.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be 
examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. We will provide a paper copy 
of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction 
costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, 
U.S. DOJ--ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.
    Please enclose a check or money order for $22.50 (25 cents per page 
reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

Thomas P. Carroll,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment 
and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-25283 Filed 10-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-CW-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
| (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   |                                                              |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: November 12, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Paul Campbell                                            |   |
|                          |   | Paul Campbell                                                     |   |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer        |   |
|                          |   |                                                              |   |