alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Parker, Appellant, *v.*Rose, Appellee.

(No. 4018

Decided June 4, 1947.)

*Mr. Isadore L. Margulis,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Mayer <& Mayer,*for appellee.

Hornbeck, J.

Plaintiff, appellant herein, recovered a judgment in the Municipal Court of Columbus, against the defendant, appellee-herein, who appealed from the judgment to the Common Pleas Court. The notice of appeal was regular and it and the bill of exceptions were filed within time. Defendant failed to file assignments of error and brief within rule in the Common Pleas Court, and appellee there, appellant here, moved to dismiss the appeal, which motion was overruled. Appellant there, appellee here, moved the court for leave to file the assignment of errors and brief out of rule, which motion was sustained. From this orden of the Common Pleas Court this appeal is taken, and the parties have briefed the question presented. No motion has been filed to dismiss the appeal, but counsel for appellee here argue that there is no final order or judgment from which an appeal may be prosecuted.

That claim is -well made. Manifestly, the order made was not a judgment which is pending determination on the appeal in the Common Pleas Court, nor is it *217a final order, because it does not determine the action or prevent a judgment. Section 12223-2, General Code. See, also, 2 Ohio Jurisprudence, 135; *Longworth*v. *Mullaly,*2 Handy, 131, 12 Dec. Rep., 366; *Knollwood Cemetery Co.*v. *Cuyahoga County,*137 Ohio St., 388, 30, N. E. (2d), 687; *Bankers Life Co.*v. *Waters,*39 Ohio App., 343, 177 N. E., 530.

Inasmuch as appeals may be prosecuted to judgments bf final orders only, and we have neither here, we cannot entertain this appeal and it will be dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Wiseman, P. J., and Miller, J., concur.
**EXHIBIT 10.13**

**SECOND ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

          THIS SECOND ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Addendum”) is made effective as of the 13th day of June, 2002 by and among AnworthMortgage Asset Corporation, a Maryland corporation (“Anworth”), and Joseph E. McAdams (the “Executive”).

**W I T N E S S E T H :**

          WHEREAS, the Executive and Anworth Mortgage Advisory Corporation (the “Company”) entered into an employment agreement dated January 1, 2002 (the“Agreement”).

          WHEREAS, the Executive, the Company and Anworth entered into an addendum to such employment agreement dated April18, 2002 (the “Addendum” and together with the Agreement, the “Amended Agreement”).

          WHEREAS, as of the date hereof,the Company has merged with and into Anworth (the “Merger”) and the Amended Agreement and all rights and obligations of the Company thereunder have been assigned by the Company to and assumed by Anworth.

          WHEREAS, Anworth and the Executive desire to further modify the terms of the Executive’s employment under the Amended Agreement.

          NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby covenant and agree as follows:

          **1.     Employment (Section 4 of the Addendum)**.  All references to “Vice President” in Section 4 of the Addendumare hereby amended and replaced with words “Executive Vice President.”

          **2.     Remaining TermsUnchanged**. The parties agree that all terms and conditions of the Amended Agreement (as modified by this Second Addendum), including, but not limited to, all provisions pertaining to compensation, termination, choice of law and arbitration,shall remain in full force and effect as modified hereby.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 9","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"UeiiNoILGG\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-9\/\">Expedition 9<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-9\/embed\/#?secret=UeiiNoILGG\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 9” — NASA\" data-secret=\"UeiiNoILGG\" 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\/2023\/03\/exp09-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
423 A.2d 1304

#### Giantonio, Appellant, v. Wilson.

Argued March 19, 1979.

Joseph A. Ryan, for appellant; Robert S. Gawthrop, Jr., for appellee.

Before PRICE, SPAETH and LIPEZ, JJ.

The orders are affirmed on the able opinions of Stively, J., of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County.

PRICE, J., dissented.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**YUHE
      INTERNATIONAL, INC.**





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of YUHE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jiang
      Yingjun, the 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 :





(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.




Date:
      20th day of May, 2008.





/s/
                Jiang YingjunJiang
                YingjunChief
                Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1260

KANHUA YOUNG; LIHYING YOUNG, Petitioners - Appellants, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 98-8215) Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 2, 2000 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kanhua Young, Lihying Young, Appellants Pro Se. Janet A. Bradley,Loretta C. Argrett, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Stuart L. Brown, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Kanhua and Lihying Young appeal from the tax court’s orders determining a deficiency and assessing an accuracy-related penalty for their 1994 and 1995 income taxes and denying their motions for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the tax court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. See Young v. Commissioner , Tax Ct. No. 98-8215 (U.S.T.C. Sept. 15 & 16, 1999; Jan. 11 & Feb. 24, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

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:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8551 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE
THREE AND NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          21,432
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     37,625
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               112,662
<PP&E>                                         105,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 170,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,741
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           166
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   170,147
<SALES>                                        127,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,061
<CGS>                                           80,010
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,910
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 551
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,952
<INCOME-TAX>                                       914
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,038
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,038
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Caesar L. Torres,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-02711-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Wetherall Group, Ltd

(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 10/20/2017, 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: October 26, 2017 /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 8418 Filed 10/27/17 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 8418 Filed 10/27/17 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:16-mj-01000-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01000-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/05/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-mj-01000-JFM Document 3 Filed 01/05/16 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rochelle Goins,

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-17-03907-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: October 26, 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 8555 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 1
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

Tracy Bergstrom on behalf of the 

statutory beneficiaries of her deceased 

husband George Bergstrom,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

United States of America,

Defendant.

3:15-cv-08307-JWS

ORDER

The Court has considered the parties’ stipulated motion to dismiss (Doc. 23), and 

good cause appearing therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is dismissed with prejudice, each party 

to bear its own costs and fees. 

DATED this 19th day of January 2017.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:15-cv-08307-JWS Document 24 Filed 01/20/17 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.

               Certifications Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.

         The  undersigned,  who is the  chief  executive  officer  and the chief
financial officer of Community First  Bancorporation,  hereby certifies that, to
the best of his  knowledge,  the  accompanying  Form 10-QSB of the issuer  fully
complies  with the  requirements  of  Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934,  and that  information  contained  in the  report  fairly
presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of
operations of the issuer.


August 11, 2004

                             s/ Frederick D. Shepherd, Jr.
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             Frederick D. Shepherd, Jr.
                             Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 8, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00691

- CV

Superior HealthPlan, Inc. and William Brendle Glomb, MD, Appellant s

v.

Linda Badawo, Individually, and as Next Friend of D. B. (formerly known as D. M.),

a Minor, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES KELLY AND S MITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the tr i a l court on October 16, 2018

.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no

reversibl e err or in the trial court’s interlocutory order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial

court’s interlocutory order

. The appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this

Court and in the court below.
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. 

Enri Mariel Garcia-Garcia, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-15-01470-001-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to modify his sentence pursuant to 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). (Doc. 24). The Government opposes the motion. (Doc. 26). 

 For the reasons stated in the Government’s response (Doc. 26) the Court will deny 

the motion. Specifically, Defendant waived the right to file a motion under this section in 

his plea agreement, and the Court finds the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; 

thus the waiver is enforceable. 

 Additionally, even if the waiver was not enforceable, because the amendment 

under which Defendant seeks relief (Amendment 802 to USSG § 2L1.3) has not been 

made retroactive and is not listed under USSG § 1B1.10(d), a reduction of Defendant’s 

sentence is not authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

 Finally, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court agrees with the Government that 

based on Defendant’s history, he is not entitled to a modification. 

 Accordingly, 

/ / / 

Case 2:15-cr-01470-JAT Document 27 Filed 03/24/17 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 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for modification of sentence pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (Doc. 24) is denied. 

 Dated this 24th day of March, 2017. 

 

Case 2:15-cr-01470-JAT Document 27 Filed 03/24/17 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,104
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         180,528
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                15,400
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     63,820
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        158,929
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,011
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 267,593
<DEPOSITS>                                     240,027
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,416
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,091
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 267,593
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,559
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  955
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   316
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,830
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               1,864
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,864
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,966
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      144
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   3
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,062
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,062
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       695
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.93
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       116
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    201
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,999
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      155
<RECOVERIES>                                       167
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,011
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,011
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,466
        
</TABLE>