alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### M’Connell *v.*Baker.

The declaration in assumpsit stated, that the plaintiff had bought of the defendant all the fat hogs which the defendant then had,'supposed to be about 530, at three dollars and *IZi*cents per cwt., to be delivered, &c.; but that the hogs had not been delivered, &c. *Held,*that the declaration was bad on general demurrer, for not averring some particular number of hogs, with their weight, which the defendant had when the contract was made.

*Tuesday August*22.

ERROR to the *Fayette*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

This is an action of assumpsit. There are two special counts, stating that the plaintiff had bought of the defendant “ all the fat hogs which the defendant then had, supposed to be about 530 hogs, at the rate or price of three dollars and 12# cents per cwt. gross weight for the said hogs,”—to be delivered afterwards, *&c.;*but that the said hogs had not been delivered, &c. There are also two general counts,—one for money had and received, and the other for money lent and advanced. General demurrer to the special counts, and the demurrer sustained. To the other counts, the general, issue was pleaded, and the plaintiff, on the trial, recovered a judgment. The plaintiff below is the plaintiff in error.

The only question raised in the cause is, could the special counts be sustained, without an averment of the number and weight of the hogs which were to have been delivered?

We think these counts are substantially defective. The *326contract declared on is for the delivery of all the fat hogs which the defendant then had, supposed to be about 530 hogs, at the price of three dollars and 12|- cents per cwt.; and the breach assigned is, that the said hogs were not delivered according to contract. The counts are defective, because there is no averment of any particular number of hogs with their weight, which the defendant had when the contract was made. In actions of this kind—for the non-delivery of goods—the value of the goods must be proved on the trial, or the jury have no rule by which to estimate the amount of damage for their non-delivery; and this shows, that a value must be stated in the declaration, because the plaintiff is only bound to prove the facts which he alleges. The *true*value need not be averred, but some value must.

*C. B. Smith*and *S. W. Parker,*for the plaintiff.

*O. H. Smith,*for the defendant.

Reverse the case, and suppose the suit were brought for the price of hogs sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, supposed to be 530 hogs, at three dollars and 12-& cents per cwt.,—could a declaration, not averring the number and weight of the hogs, be sustained? It certainly could not; and the obvious reason is, that the amount due to the plaintiff, admitting his statement to be true, would- not be shown by the declaration. The averment is as necessary in the one case as in the other.

*Per*Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed with costs. To be certified, «fee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                               5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1000
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1
<CASH>                                        7,790
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                30,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                   7,928
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             57,325
<PP&E>                                      399,930
<DEPRECIATION>                               40,991
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              433,267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        32,963
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       115,000
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                         15
<OTHER-SE>                                  215,039
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                433,267
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            142,853
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               107,723
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              2,093
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            4,529
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              28,508
<INCOME-TAX>                                 10,662
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          17,846
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               2,132
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 15,714
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.04


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 pertaining to The UniMark Group, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan of our
report dated November 15, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of The UniMark Group, Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

                                          Mancera, S.C.
                                          Member Practice of
                                          Ernst & Young Global

Mexico City, Mexico
February 23, 2005
Exhibit 10.42



March 3, 2004



Via
hand delivered



Mr. Mark Getty

17 Conway Street

Fitzrovia London, UK

W1T 6EE



|Re: |  | Notice Pursuant to Employment Agreement
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------



Dear Mark:



With
respect to the employment agreement between you and the Company dated as of February 9, 1998 (the Agreement), this letter will serve as confirmation that you have agreed to waive the notice provisions of Section 2 of the Agreement
and that the Agreement is terminated as of date of the Companys 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (expected to be on May 17, 2004) except that Section 6 of the Agreement regarding Protection of the Companys
Interests will continue in effect for so long as you are Non-Executive Chairman of the Company or are otherwise receiving payments pursuant to Sections 4(b), 4(c) or 4(d) of the Agreement. You will no longer be an executive officer or
employee of the Company beginning on the date of the Companys 2004 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.



Please acknowledge your receipt of this letter by signing and dating below. Please return the signed original to my attention.



Very truly yours,



GETTY IMAGES, INC.



|    |  |                                                                                
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ ANDREW S. GARB                                                             
|    |  | Andrew S. Garb Chairman of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors



RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGED:



|                               |  |              
|------------------------------ |  | -------------
|/s/ MARK H. GETTYMark H. Getty
|                               | 
|Dated:                         |  | March 3, 2004
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Gary Daines","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/gary-dainesnasa-gov\/","title":"ISS Research Communications Lead Jennifer Hamilton","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"DxCEalt63i\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/jsc2023e040107-2\/\">ISS Research Communications Lead Jennifer Hamilton<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/jsc2023e040107-2\/embed\/#?secret=DxCEalt63i\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“ISS Research Communications Lead Jennifer Hamilton” — NASA\" data-secret=\"DxCEalt63i\" 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\/10\/jsc2023e040107.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":438}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DOMINIC R. SCHIAVO.

May 2, 1989.

Leave to reinstate the appeal granted; and it is further ORDERED that the motion to remand to the Appellate Division is granted.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-105","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"XQiXzK64za\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-105\/\">STS-105<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-105\/embed\/#?secret=XQiXzK64za\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-105” — NASA\" data-secret=\"XQiXzK64za\" 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:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/0201580\/0201580~large.jpg?w=600&h=1536&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1536}
#### Adamu TESHALE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-1813.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 11, 2005.

Decided: Feb. 24, 2005.

Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, James A Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, Song Park, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*572PER CURIAM:

Adamu Teshale, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion the immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

In his petition for review, Teshale challenges the immigration judge’s determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812,117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Teshale fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that he seeks.

Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Teshale’s request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum — even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” *Camara v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir.2004). Because Teshale fails to show that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal.

We also find that Teshale fails to meet the standard for relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2004). We find that Teshale fails to make the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
****

**Exhibit  32.2**

**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 Inland Fiber Group, LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for  the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Thomas C. Ludlow, 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. 

|                                                                             |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Thomas C. Ludlow           |
| Thomas C. Ludlow                                                                 |
| Chief Financial and        Accounting Officer                                    |
| September 21, 2006                                                               |

 

**A signed  original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document  authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears  in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required  by Section 906, has been provided to Inland Fiber Group, LLC and will be retained  by Inland Fiber Group,LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission  or its staff upon request.**
{"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 22","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"B8zByoVvbR\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-22\/\">Expedition 22<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-22\/embed\/#?secret=B8zByoVvbR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 22” — NASA\" data-secret=\"B8zByoVvbR\" 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\/exp22-portrait.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
NO. 07-15-00115-CR

ISFRAEL GONZALEZ § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
VS. § FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT
THE STATE OF TEXAS § OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO

STATE’S MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING THE STATE’S BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: The State of Texas respectfully requests that the time for filing its brief in this cause be extended. In support of this motion the State would show the Court the following: Appellant pleaded guilty and was placed on probation for engaging in organized criminal activity; this appeal is from his probation revocation, after which he was assessed a sentence of confinement for eight years in TDCJ. Appellant is currently incarcerated. Appellant filed his brief on July 7, 2015, and the State’s brief was due August 10, 2015. The State requests an extension of time to file its brief until September 10, 2015. Counsel has good cause for the delay in filing this brief. The Cooke County D.A.’s Office had requested the undersigned to prepare and file the brief and represent the State of Texas in this appeal as a special prosecutor, because that office does not have an appellate attorney. Undersigned counsel is unable to timely complete the brief due to a final illness and death in counsel’s household, and the
Page 1 ACCEPTED 07-15-00115-CR SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS

AMARILLO, TEXAS 8/12/2015 12:58:49 PM Vivian Long, ClerkDi s t ri ct At t o rn ey h as t h erefo re ag reed t o reas s i gn t h e b ri ef t o an o t h er l o cal at t o rn ey

as s peci al p ro s ecu t o r. No p rev io u s ex t en s io n h as b een req u es t ed b y th e St at e i n t h i s

m at t er. W HEREFORE, PREM ISES CONSIDERED, t h e St at e res p ect fu l l y req u es t s
t h att h e t i m e fo r fi l i n g t h e St at e’ s b ri ef b e ex t en d edu nt i l Sep t em b er 1 0 , 2 01 5

. Res pect fu l ly

s ubm i tt ed ,

J ANICE WARDER Co o k e Co u n t y

Di s t ri ctAt t o rn ey Co o k e Co u n t y

Co u rt ho u s e Gai n es vi l l e, Tex as 7 6 2 4 0 -4 7 6 0 (9 4 0 ) 6 6 8 -5 46 6 Tel ep ho n e (9 4 0 ) 6 6 8 -5 49 9 Facs i m il e b y : _

_ _ _ /s / Su e Ko ri o t h

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Su e Ko ri o th , Tex as Bar # 1 1 6 8 1 9 7 5 Sp eci al Pro s ecu t or Co o k e Co u n t y D. A.’ s Offi ce P.O. Bo x 6 0 0 1 0 3 Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 3 6 0 -0 1 0 3 (2 1 4 ) 3 84 -3 8 6 4 s u ek o ri o t h @ ao l .co m

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I h ereb y cert i fy t hat a t ru e co p y o f t h e fo reg o i n g h as b een s e r v e d o n Ch ri s t o p h er Grah am , At t o rn ey fo r Ap pel l an t , b y em ai l o r by e-s erv i ce i f av ai lab l e t o hi s ad d res s atcl g rah am @ lg i -l aw.co m
.

__

_ _ / s /Su e Ko ri ot h

_

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ SUE KORIOTH

Pag e 2