alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gideon Walker *v.*Richard Christmas and Wife.

Adverse Possession — Defect in Documentary Title Cured by Long Possession.

An apparent defect in a chain of documentary title may be supplied by the corroborative presumption arising from long and continuous possession and from the acquiescence in the occupancy.

Same — Vendor and Purchaser — Grantor Liable for Trespass Committed by His Vendees Under His Wrongful Conveyance.

Although the oc'cupants under the appellant might be held liable for not only the use of the land, but the conversion of the timber and the wood, yet as they entered under him and acted under the licenes of his wrongful conveyance, he is responsible to the appellee for all damages resulting from his unlawful entry and license.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

September 29, 1868.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Robertson:

The apparent defect in the technical authentication of two links in the chain of documentary title may be supplied by the corroborative presumption arising from long and continuous possession under that concatination, and from the acquiescence of the appellant in that claim and occupancy.

But independently of the derivative title, the adverse possession under it sufficiently established the possessory right of the appellees and the tortiosness of the appellant’s entry. The old division fence included all the land recovered, and for more tban thirty years had defined the actual possession of the appellees. This is too well established to need argument on the testimony.

The judgment for restitution was therefore right.

Nor can we perceive any available error in the judgment for rent and removal of timber and wood. The amount adjudged is supported by the evidence. And, although the occupants under •the appellant might be held liable for not only the use of the land, but the conversion of the timber and the wood, yet nevertheless, as they entered under him and acted under the license of *638his wrongful conveyance, he is responsible to the appellees for all damage resulting from his unlawful entry and license.

*Caldwell, for appellant.*

*Rodman, for appellees.*

And if, as between him and his authorized tenants, they may be liable to him, that matter was neither litigated between them, nor is complained of. Their cross-petition against him afforded him a suitable opportunity for adjustment. And perhaps their judgment against him might be subject to some abatement or set-off. ' But as he does not now complain of that judgment, no contest between them is cognisable on this appeal.

The judgment for the appellees against him being right he must look to his tenants for redress, if he be entitled to any.

"Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Brandon Michael Holley, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-15-1302-PHX-SPL 

DETENTION ORDER 

 

 On May 17, 2019, defendant, Brandon Michael Holley, appeared before this Court 

on a petition for revocation of supervised release. The Court considered the information 

provided to the Court, and the arguments of counsel in determining whether the defendant 

should be released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that the defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to 

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 

he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant 

to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. § 

3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 20th day of May, 2019.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steven Kessman,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-18-00282-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: McSweeney Langevin, LLC

(Name of plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you.

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case.

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s 

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service.

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 1/30/2018, the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the United States). If I fail 

to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date: February 1, 2018 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral

Vascular, Inc.

Printed name of parties waiving service of 

summons

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

Printed Name

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) 322-6155

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure. 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9931 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 2
2

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has 

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of 

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the 

plaintiff and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been 

served.

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9931 Filed 02/05/18 Page 2 of 2
#### BRADLEY-LOREN COMPANY, ET AL. v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ET AL.

April 24, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN HUMPHREY.

April 19, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
#### JEANNE A. DUKE v. JEFFREY A. MATTES, M.D.

May 2, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A1722. JULIE ANN CALLAWAY v. WILLIAM MANDERS.

The Appellant in the above-styled case has filed a motion entitled Motion To

Withdraw Appeal. Pursuant to Court Rule 41(g)(1), said motion is hereby

GRANTED.

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.

July 22, 2021

07/22/2021
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Donald K. Daniel, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Health Realty, Inc.;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

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

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we
have:

a)	designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 being prepared;

b)	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date
within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date'); and

c)	presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures based on such evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

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

a)	all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely
affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there
were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard
to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:   November 1, 2005

| | /s/ Donald K. Daniel        
| | ----------------------------
| | Donald K. Daniel            
| | Principal Accounting Officer
| |
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-1701 

_____________________________

DAVID G. JEMISON and ANN D.

JEMISON,

Appellants,

v.

DRAKE ENTERPRISES OF RUSTON,

LLC, a Louisiana limited 

liability company, RESOURCE 

BANK, and COMMUNITY TRUST 

BANK,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County.

Jeffrey E. Lewis, Judge.

November 7, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, NORDBY, and LONG, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Michael J. Henry and Gary A. Shipman of Dunlap & Shipman, 

P.A., Santa Rosa Beach, for Appellants.

Douglas L. Smith and Gregory J. Philo of Burke Blue, P.A.,

Panama City, for Appellees.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"50 Years Ago: Management Changes at NASA","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"kB9hkgjetw\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/50-years-ago-management-changes-at-nasa\/\">50 Years Ago: Management Changes at NASA<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/50-years-ago-management-changes-at-nasa\/embed\/#?secret=kB9hkgjetw\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“50 Years Ago: Management Changes at NASA” — NASA\" data-secret=\"kB9hkgjetw\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/gen_sam_phillips_in_lcc_apollo_11_launch_jul_16_1969_s69-40588_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":863}
----

EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(A) OR RULE 15D-14(A) PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Louis Gignac, certify that: 

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F of Cambior Inc. (the "Company");

2. Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respectto the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 

4. The Company's other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) 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 us  by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  report is being prepared; 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of  the Company'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 the Company's internal control over financial reporting that  occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially  affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal  control over financial reporting; and 

5. The Company's other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the auditcommittee of the Company's board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): 
  (a)all significant deficiencies  and material weaknesses 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 
  (b)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.   Date:                  March 31, 2006                            */s/ Louis Gignac                                      * Louis Gignac President and Chief Executive Officer Cambior Inc.
Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER








Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), the undersigned, Louis J. Petrucelly, Chief Financial Officer of FalconStor Software, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:





The Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2015 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/ Louis J. PetrucellyLouis J. PetrucellyExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerMarch 11, 2016
Exhibit 10.22


 


ADDENDUM TO AMENDED AND RESTATED OFFICE LEASE


 


THIS Addendum to Amended and
Restated Office Lease dated this 16th day of May 2002 is entered into between
MUM II, LLC (“Landlord”) and Horizon Dairy, Inc. (“Tenant”)


 


WHEREAS,
simultaneously herewith the parties are entering into the Amended and Restated
Office Lease for the rental of a portion of the Horizon Building  (the “Restated Lease”); and,


 


WHEREAS,
toward the end of the negotiations for the Restated Lease but prior to the
preparation of Exhibit C attached to the Restated Lease, Tenant requested that
three new window openings be made to the area depicted on Exhibit C and that
four new skylights be installed on the roof of the area depicted on Exhibit C;
and,


 


WHEREAS, the
Base Rent set forth in the Restated Lease was based upon the Premises without
the three new window openings and four new skylights; and,


 


WHEREAS, the
new window openings and skylights will cost the Landlord an additional $22,500
to install; and,


 


WHEREAS, the
parties have agreed on how this extra cost will be shared between the parties
and wish to set forth that agreement in this Addendum;


 


IT IS
THEREFORE AGREED as follows:


 


1.                                       In
consideration of the extra windows and skylights described above, Tenant shall
pay Landlord the sum of $11,250 plus interest thereon at the rate of 7.15%  per annum in sixty payments of $223.56 per
month beginning August 1, 2002  and
ending on July 1, 2007.


 


2.                                       The
sums set forth in paragraph 1 above shall be due regardless of whether the
Restated Lease is terminated and the obligation to pay such sums shall survive
the termination of the Restated Lease if the termination is due to the default
of Tenant.


 


3.                                       Tenant
acknowledges that cutting the openings in the existing concrete walls and roof
in order to add the three new window openings and four skylights will cause a
great deal of noise that will exceed the noise created by the other
construction activity necessary to complete the work set forth on Exhibit C to
the Restated Lease.  Landlord shall use
commercially reasonable methods to minimize such noise, if feasible.  Nothing in this paragraph will affect
Tenant’s rights under Section 11 of  the  Restated Lease.








 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF the parties have executed this Addendum on the day and year first above
written.


 


	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  HORIZON
  ORGANIC DAIRY, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Tom Briggs

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:  Tom Briggs

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:  CFO

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  MUM II, LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Donald W. Unkefer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Donald W.
  Unkefer, Jr., Manager
#### Hardin Graves *v.*Robert Hickerson et al.

Judgment — Appeal from on Agreed Facts.

An. appeal from an agreed judgment, after the time allowed, will not reopen the judgment, hut is held conclusive as to the question of liability therein.

Guardian and Ward — Expenses Equal to Receipts from Ward’s Property.

Where the expenses of maintenance of wards equal the rents, interterest, etc., of their property, one is held to balance off the other.

APPAEL FROM WASHINGTON CIRCUIT COURT.

April 23, 1869.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The judgment of May, 1861, fixed the liability of Hall, the guardian, and his sureties for the price paid to McDaniel for the land, that judgment it was agreed by the parties, should be final for the purposes of an appeal to this court, but it was not appealed from and therefore must be regarded as conclusive of the question of liability, and is irrevocable now.

Appellees, Susan and Sarah, were apprenticed to Carter Hall, and subsequently thereto he was on his own motion appointed their guardian; that would have been a useless ceremony if they had been entirely without estates, as he had, by binding them to him, the care and custody of the children which if any fortifying circumstances were necessary strengthens the conclusion that the land had been paid for by their father.

The principal sum charged against the guardian as the price paid by the father of the wards is the true amount paid by him as shown by the evidence, and the time fixed, when it should carry interest not improper.

On the cross-appeal but little need be said. While it is true that Susan and Sarah Hall were bound to Carter Hall, still he did not treat them as apprentices, but was as careful and attentive to their education and comfortable support as his means would allow. And the expenses thus incurred by him must have *113exceeded, as the evidence shows, the annual profits, or interest in the'small sums that were their shares of the price of the land, and the judgment is not unjust to them under all the circumstances.

*Harlan, Hays, for appellant.*

*Brown, for appellees.*

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed*on the original and cross-appeals.