alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Robert E. Lewis","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/robert-e-lewisnasa-gov\/","title":"Space Food Systems","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rmx3Gz7O6A\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/hhp\/space-food-systems\/\">Space Food Systems<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/directorates\/esdmd\/hhp\/space-food-systems\/embed\/#?secret=rmx3Gz7O6A\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Space Food Systems” — NASA\" data-secret=\"rmx3Gz7O6A\" 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\/jsc2011e212182.jpeg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
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

1

TRINETTE G. KENT (State Bar No. 025180)

KENT LAW OFFICES

10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192

Phoenix, AZ 85028 

Telephone: (480) 247-9644

Facsimile: (480) 717-4781

E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com

Of Counsel to:

Arizona Credit Lawyers

22142 West Nine Mile Road

Southfield, MI 48033

Telephone: (248) 353-2882

Facsimile: (248) 353-4840

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Michael Burggraf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Burggraf,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 

an Ohio corporation,

Equifax Information Services, LLC

a Georgia corporation, and

Bank of America, N.A.,

a national banking association,

Defendants.

Case No.: CV-16-00378-PHX-SRB

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AS TO 

DEFENDANT EQUIFAX 

INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, 

ONLY

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Plaintiff and Defendant, Equifax 

Information Services, LLC, in the above-captioned case have reached a settlement. 

Case 2:16-cv-00378-SRB Document 19 Filed 03/25/16 Page 1 of 3
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

2

The parties anticipate filing a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice as to Defendant 

Equifax Information Services, LLC, ONLY, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) within 

60 days.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 25

th day of March, 2016.

 KENT LAW OFFICES

By: /s/ Trinette G. Kent 

Trinette G. Kent 

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

Michael Burggraf

Case 2:16-cv-00378-SRB Document 19 Filed 03/25/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:16-cv-00378-SRB Document 19 Filed 03/25/16 Page 3 of 3
#### Elihu Price *v.*Raleigh Kendall's Exor.

Interest — Usury—Acts Condemning Charge of — When Defense May not be Made.

appeal erom eleming circuit court.

February 1, 1871.

Opinion oe ti-ie Court by

Judge Lindsay:

Erom the evidence it is clear that a very considerable portion of the original indebtedness of Myers to Kendall was composed of usurious interest. It seems, however, that in a transaction between Myers and Elihu Price, the latter, for a valuable consid*540eration, assumed, to pay the entire amount of the indebtedness to Kendall, and that the note upon which the judgment in this action was rendered was executed in pursuance of that agreement and in lieu of those held by Kendall on Myers. It is proven by Myers, who is the witness of the appellant, that he neither authorized nor requested them to defend their note upon the ground that Kendall had exacted usurious interest from him. As Myers nor Kendall have^exacted such interest from the appellant it is difficult to perceive any ground upon which their attempted defense can be sustained. The judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

*Oord, for appellant.*

*Andrews, for appellee.*
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Jean M. Nelson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Virbac Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand 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 registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: November 10, 2005 By:  /s/  Jean M. Nelson    Jean M. Nelson     Executive Vice President
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.18

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                         TO AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES, INC.
                                 ADJUSTMENT PLAN

         The second paragraph of Section 13 of the AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.
Adjustment Plan shall be amended in its entirety to read as follows:

            The Board or the Committee may amend, alter, suspend, discontinue or
         terminate the Plan or any portion thereof at any time; provided,
         however, that no such amendment, alteration, suspension,
         discontinuation or termination shall be made without (a) stockholder
         approval if such approval is necessary to qualify for or comply with
         any tax or regulatory requirement for which or with which the Board
         deems it necessary or desirable to qualify or comply or (b) the consent
         of the affected Participant, if such action would impair the rights of
         such Participant under any outstanding Award. Notwithstanding anything
         to the contrary herein, (x) the Board or the Committee may amend the
         Plan in such manner as may be necessary so as to have the Plan conform
         to local rules and regulations in any jurisdiction outside the United
         States and (y) the Committee may not amend Section 4 to increase the
         number of Shares available for issuance under the Plan.
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

 

 Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss (Doc. 29). Pursuant to the 

parties’ stipulation, 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

1. That the Stipulation to Dismiss (Doc. 29) is granted; 

2. That this action is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety; 

3. That each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees; and 

4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 8th day of April, 2016.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Robert W. Jones, et al., 

 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, 

FSB, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-15-02219-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-02219-SPL Document 30 Filed 04/08/16 Page 1 of 1
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Xponential, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert W. Schleizer,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.             TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             Theinformation contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: May 16, 2005 | /s/ Robert W. Schleizer            |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                    | Robert W. Schleizer                |
|                    | Executive Vice President and Chief |
|                    | Financial Officer                  |

 

----
#### Isham and Celia Albritton *v.*P. D. Thornton.

Pleading — Newly -Discovered Evidence — New Trial.

After the adjournment of the court, whether upon petition or otherwise, it has no power to alter, change, or set aside any order or judgment made or entered by it while sitting as a court, but upon discovery of grounds for a new trial, after the term at which the judgment was rendered, an application may be made to the court by petition for a new trial, as provided by section 373, Civ. C.

APPEAL EROM CALLOWAY CIRCUIT COURT.

January 27, 1868.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters :

This petition was filed in the Calloway County Court to set aside and vacate an order of said court, made some five months previous to the filing of said petition, binding two colored children to appellee, children'of appellant Celia.

After the adjournment of the court, it had no power to alter, change, or set aside any order or judgment made or entered by it while sitting as a court, but by *section*3^3, *Givil Code.*TJpon discovery- of grounds for a new trial, after the term at which the judgment was rendered, an application may be made to the court by petition filed with the clerk, and proceedings as prescribed in said *section.*By an examination of the petition in this case, it is apparent that the facts alleged present no sufficient grounds for a new trial; but if appellants are entitled to relief, it must be sought in a different *forum.*

As therefore the facts stated in the petition were not sufficient *55to constitute a cause of action, there was no error in dismissing the petition. Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Rodman, *Brown &*Miller, *for appellants.*

Stubblefield, *for appellee.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         965,472
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,035,623
<PP&E>                                         112,986
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,432
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,076,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,032
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,841
<OTHER-SE>                                     983,607
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,076,408
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 128
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (259,799)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (259,799)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (259,799)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)



</TABLE>
576 A.2d 858

#### IN THE MATTER OF FREDERICK S. MARGULIES, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

July 20, 1990.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed a report with the Supreme Court setting forth that FREDERICK S. MARGU*310LIES of LITTLE FALLS, who was admitted to the Bar of this State in 1987, was publicly censured by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the report further setting forth the recommendation that reciprocal discipline in the form of a public reprimand be imposed on FREDERICK S. MARGULIES for misrepresentations that he made to Counsel to the Board on Professional Responsibility which, in part, led to his public censure, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the findings of the Disciplinary Review Board are hereby adopted and FREDERICK S. MARGULIES is hereby publicly reprimanded for conduct in violation of *RPC*8.4(c); and it is further

ORDERED that the Decision and Recommendation of the Disciplinary Review Board, together with this Order and the full record of the matter, be added as a permanent part of the file of said FREDERICK S. MARGULIES as an attorney at law of the State of New Jersey; and it is further

ORDERED that FREDERICK S. MARGULIES reimburse the Ethics Financial Committee for appropriate administrative costs.
#### S. M. Donnell *v.*William E. Knox, et al.

Animals — Sheep Killed by Dogs — Action For Damages — Petition.

In an action for damages for sheep killed by dogs the petition must allege that the owner of the dogs had received the notice required by the statute, or that his dogs had killed and wounded sheep before.

APPEAL PROM NICHOLAS CIRCUIT COURT.

January 5, 1871.

*191Boss, *for appellant.*

*Phister¿*Hargis, *for appellee.*

OPINION OE THE CouET BY

JUDGE LlNDSAY I

The 3rd section of tbe Act of January 31st, 1865, provided “That every person owning, having' or keeping' any dogs, shall be liable to the party injured for all damages done by such dog.” By an Act approved March 9th, 1868, this Statute was so amended as to provide that the person owning, having or keeping “dogs by which sheep are killed or injured, shall *not*be liable to the party injured for damages, unless he shall have received previous notice that his dog or dogs have killed or wounded sheep.”

The sheep, for the value of which this action was brought, were killed after the passage of this last act. The petition does not allege and the proof wholly failed to show that either one of the owners of the dogs had received the notice required, or that their dogs had ever killed or wounded sheep before the occasion complained of. The peremptory instruction by the court to the jury to find for the defendant was warranted by the appellant’s proof.

Judgment *affirmed.*
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002,  that the Quarterly  Report of Geneva  Financial  Corp. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  June  30,  2003  fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended,  and that  information  contained in such  Quarterly  Report on Form
10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of the Company.


                                                /s/ Keith S. Haffner
Dated: August 14, 2003                          --------------------------------
                                                Keith S. Haffner
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
#### Samuel Cummings *v.*B. Homans & Co.

Attachment — Preference of Creditors.

The securing of a creditor, who is not a party to any scheme by a debtor to prefer creditors, and where both parties show an honest intent, not grounds for an attachment.

APPEAL PROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

September 29, 1870.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Williams:

Homans, a banker, doing business in Cincinnati, and residing in Campbell county, Kentucky, failed in business on tbe 26th of August, 1869. On that day this action was brought by Cummings in the Campbell circuit court to recover a balance of $3,846.35 on a deficit account, and an order of attachment was sued out on the ground that ITomans ivas about to sell, convey or otherwise dispose of his property with the fraudulent intent to hinder or delay his creditors. On the 30th day of August, Cummings filed an additional affidavit setting up the further ground of attachment, that Homans had left the county of his residence to avoid the service of summons, and on the 10th of September still another affidavit was filed alleging that Homans *had*disposed of his property with the fraudulent intent to cheat, hinder and delay his creditors.

No defense was made to the action and judgment for the amount claimed was accordingly rendered. Homans, however, by the proper affidavit denied all three of the grounds of attachment and upon hearing the court discharged the order and from this judgment Cummings prosecutes this appeal. It appears that a short time before bis failure Homans set apart certain notes to a ladies’ sewing society which had a few hundred dollars deposited with him and that upon the day he suspended business be delivered to two certain banking houses in Cincinnati, securities sufficient to indemnify them on account of accommodations received from them on the day before. It is not pretended that the debts thus paid or secured did not in point of fact exist; nor *107that the securities were delivered by Homans to his creditors in pursuance of any fraudulent agreement or understanding with them, and as preferring *one*honest creditor to another has never been deemed a fraudulent disposition of. property within the meaning of those provisions of the Civil Code of Practice, authorizing attachments upon such ground. This court is of opinion that the evidence does not sustain either the first or third ground relied upon.

*Hallam, for appellant.*

*Stevenson*P Myers, *for appellee.*

The charge that Homans had left the county of his residence to avoid the service of summons ivas not sustained by proof o.f his absence from home at the time the officer called at his house, especially Avhen it is considered that on the day after the institution of the action he was in Campbell county and the summons is executed.

Wherefore the judgment of the court below discharging the order of attachment is *affirmed.*