alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FOR MILLER EXPLORATION COMPANY AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             931                     931
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,274                   4,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        168                     168
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,521                   5,521
<PP&E>                                         139,233                 139,233
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,395                  74,395
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  71,114                  71,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,094                  16,094
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           127                     127
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,042                  24,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    71,114                  71,114
<SALES>                                          5,444                  15,089
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,545                  15,484
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,374                  15,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 998                   2,605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (827)                 (2,268)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (281)                   (857)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (546)                 (1,411)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (546)                 (1,411)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.04)                  (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)                  (0.11)


</TABLE>
9632.

#### O’Halloran *v.*The State.

Decided November 7, 1918.

Harwell, J.

1. The excerpts from the charge of the court, complained of in the 1st, 2d and 3d special grounds of the motion for a new trial, standing alone and isolated from the body of .the charge, are subject to criticism, but when'the charge of the court is read in its entirety it can not be said that the instructions therein, as a whole, permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty upon their own belief, or from facts or knowledge “outside of the testimony and the defendant’s statement in the ease.” The excerpts complained of in grounds 4 and 5, when viewed in the light of the entire charge could not have misled the jury. The charge was very full and in' all respects fair to the accused. See *Timmons*v. *State,*14 *Ga. App.*802 (6), 803 (82 S. E. 378).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*

*800Indictment for violation of prohibition law; from Muscogee superior court—Judge Howard. March 9, 1918. ■

In .the instructions set out in the 1st, 2d and 3d special grounds of the motion for a new trial the court used the expressions, “if you should believe,” and “if you should believe beyond a reasonable doubt,” without adding the words, “from the evidence.” This is complained of in each of these grounds.

*George G. Palmer, McGutchen & Bowden,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general,*contra.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patty Fairchild,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral 

Vascular, Inc.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Civil Action No. CV-17-03885-PHX-DGC

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To: Marc J Bern & Partners LLP

(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 10/24/2017, 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 8526 Filed 11/01/17 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 8526 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.31  CONSULTING CONTRACT AGREEMENT  THIS AGREEMENT is made as of this 3rd day of January, 2009,  B E T W E E N:  XTRA-GOLD RESOURCES CORP., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Nevada (hereafter called XTRA-GOLD),  -   and   -  BROKTON INTERNATIONAL LTD., of the City of Providentiales, Turks & Caisos Island (hereafter called Brokton).  RECITALS:  A.
        XTRA-GOLD is engaged in mineral exploration and development.
  B.
        XTRA-GOLD desires Brokton to enter into a contract with XTRA-GOLD to provide consulting services for the period provided in this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth below.
  C.
        Brokton is willing to accept a contract with XTRA-GOLD on the basis of such terms and conditions.
  NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged), the parties covenant and agree as follows:  1.
        Consulting Contract
  XTRA-GOLD hereby retains James Longshore to provide consulting services and Brokton hereby accepts this consulting contract with XTRA-GOLD, for the period set forth in Section 2 hereof, all upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. Pursuant to these consulting services, James Longshore shall serve as General Manager of Xtra-Gold Mining Limited and Xtra-Gold Exploration Limited the Ghanaian subsidiaries of Xtra-Gold.  2.
        Term of Consulting Contract
  Unless earlier terminated as hereinafter provided, the term of the subject consulting contract under this Agreement shall be for a period beginning January 3, 2009 (the Contract Date) and ending December 31, 2009.  3.
        Duties and Responsibilities
  James Longshore shall have such duties and powers as are normally performed and enjoyed as a General Manager of a Ghanaian corporation.    4.
        Consulting Fee




XTRA-GOLD shall pay Brokton a monthly consulting fee of USD$5,000 per month, for a total of 12 payments due at the end of each month.




5.
        Monthly Expense Compensation




XTRA-GOLD shall reimburse Brokton for all business related expenses.




6.
        Termination of the Agreement




This agreement may be terminated by any party at any time for any reason upon providing 30 days notice.




7.
        Governing Laws




This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws in force in the State of Nevada.




8.
        Modifications




This Agreement may be modified or amended only by an instrument in writing signed by both parties hereto.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date first written above.






WITNESS:
        /s/ Kevin Coombes
        )
        BROKTON INTERNATIONAL LTD.(Signature)
        ))
        By:
        /s/ James LongshoreNAME:
        Kevin Coombes
        )
        
        James Longshore(Please Print)
        )))
        XTRA-GOLD RESOURCES CORP.))
        By:
        /s/ Peter Minuk)
        
        Peter Minuk



- 2 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Victor Hugo Arroyo

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02751

Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

Olde English Gardens, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, December 9, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Beth W. Jantz: Telephonic pre−settlement

conference call held on 12/8/21, and continued to 2/8/22 at 10:00 a.m. Although discovery

remains stayed on the merits, the parties have agreed to take limited financial discovery to

aid in the possibility of settlement, including the deposition of the defendant. Accordingly,

a further telephonic status is scheduled for 2/8/22 at 10:00 a.m., at which time the parties

should be prepared to report back on their progress. To join the 2/8/22 call, dial

888−273−3658 and enter access code 2217918. Mailed notice. (as, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02751 Document #: 38 Filed: 12/09/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:104
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PR ECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
Margaree Maple, Petitioner,

v. Heritage Healthcare of Ridge way, and Phoenix Insurance Company, Carrier, Respondents. Appellate Case No. 2012-212605

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

Appeal From The Workers' Compensation Commission Andrea C. Roche, Commissioner

Memorandum Opinion No. 2014-MO-041 Heard October 8, 2014 – Filed October 22, 2014

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED

Preston F. McDaniel, of McDaniel Law Firm, of Columbia, for Petitioner. Richard Daniel Addison, of Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP, of Columbia, for Respondents.PER CURIAM: We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' opinion in Maple v. Heritage Healthcare of Ridgeway , Op. No. 2012-UP-302 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 27, 2012). We now dismi ss the writ as improvidently granted. DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY , KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Timberline Resources Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Randal Hardy, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



January 10, 2008

/s/ Randal Hardy

Randal Hardy

Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Timberline Resources Corp. and will be retained by Timberline Resources Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Section 906 Certification**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER ORPRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

In connection withthe accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Fog Cutter Capital Group Inc.for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”), I, R. Scott Stevenson,Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Fog Cutter Capital GroupInc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of FogCutter Capital Group Inc.

This writtenstatement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as anexhibit to the Report.
|              |                            |                   |   |
|-------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| November 13, 2006 |                            | /s/ R. Scott Stevenson |   |
| Date              | R. Scott Stevenson              |
|              | Senior Vice President and Chief |
|              | Financial Officer               |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by § 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
LETTER AGREEMENT WITH PALL CORPORATION 01/17/2003



 
EXHIBIT 10.21

 
Letter Agreement with Pall Corporation
dated January 17, 2003 
 
January 17, 2003 
 
By Fax 
 
Mr. Samuel T. Wortham 
Group Vice President 
Pall Corporation 
2200 Northern Boulevard 
East Hills, NY 11548 
 
Re: Stock Purchase Agreement/Fourth Closing
Trigger Date 
 
Dear Sam:

 
With reference to our February 19, 1998 Stock
Purchase Agreement as amended on August 6, 2002 and as modified by our letter agreement on December 10, 2002, and with reference to our August 6, 2002 Marketing Rights, Development, Royalty, Revolving Credit and Security Agreement (“Revolving
Credit Agreement”), Pall Corporation (“Pall”) and V.I. Technologies, Inc. (“Vitex”) agree as follows: 
 

	 	1.	 	Vitex has met the December 31, 2002 milestone for the Fourth Closing Trigger Date. 

 

	 	2.	 	In lieu of Paragraph 4 of the December 10, 2002 letter agreement, Pall shall invest $4 million in Vitex common stock at $1.02 a share (pre-split) but anything
elsewhere in that letter agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, shall close that purchase only coterminous with Vitex securing more than an additional $11 million in equity financing by September 30, 2003. 

 

	 	3.	 	On February 3, 2003, Pall shall make immediately available for Vitex to draw upon the remaining $2.5 million under the original $5 million credit facility
established in Section 5 of our Revolving Credit Agreement under the terms of that Agreement. 

 
Would you please indicate your concurrence with this agreement by countersigning and returning a copy of this agreement. 
 

	 Very truly yours,

	
	 /s/ John R. Barr


	 John R. Barr
 President and CEO



 
AGREED: 
 

	
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Samuel T. Wortham January 17, 2003         


	 Samuel T. Wortham
 Group Vice President
 Pall Corporation
H. Res. 150

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 16, 1997.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1385) to consolidate, coordinate, and improve

employment, training, literacy, and vocational rehabilitation

programs in the United States, and for other purposes. The

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Education

and the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be

in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of

amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the

nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on

Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill. The

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
2

•HRES 150 EH

considered by division rather than by section. Each division

shall be considered as read. Points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to

comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived. Before consideration of any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the amendment numbered 1 pursuant to clause 6 of

rule XXIII, if offered by Representative McKeon or his designee. That amendment shall be considered as read, may

amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall

be debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled

by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to

amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division

of the question in the House or in the Committee of the

Whole. If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended,

shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment. During consideration of the bill for further

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole

may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed

in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for

that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and

report the bill to the House with such amendments as may

have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
3

•HRES 150 EH

in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee

of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in

the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### John T. Fackler *v.*James C. Fackler.

Wills — Trust During Life — Remainder not Disposed of.

By tlie -will of tlie testatrix, a trust was created for the benefit of her daughter for life and at her death the estate was to go to her issue, but no disposition was made of the remainder. In the event the daughter has no issue she takes the remainder in fee, as heir at law of her mother.

APPEAL FROM BOYLE CIRCUIT COURT.

October 5, 1871.

*Vanwinkle, for appellant.*

*Durham & Jacobs, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

The husband of the testatrix, for whom she provided in her will, having died before she died, and upon her death by the terms of her will a trust was created for the benefit of her daughter, the appellee, during her life, and at her death the estate was to go to the issues, or descendants, of her said daughter. But the testatrix made no disposition of the estate in remainder in case her daughter died without issue or descendants, and in that event as to the estate in remainder she died intestate, and it would pass to her heirs. Consequently her daughter took a defeasible fee in it; to be defeated in the event that appellee should leave issue, as descendants surviving her, who will take it. Under this view of the case, sustained by authority and analogy, we think the judgment of the court below is as favorable to appellant as he had a right to ask it, and he has no cause of complaint.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
!

"	#"$$%	%
&	'! ()01!234516! ()01!789@1A6!

BC!)DD1)A)CE1!30!F1A1@G!H351I!@G!4F1!8CI1A03PC1I!)0!)44QAC1G!HQA6!

B44QAC1G!C)91!R4GD1!QA!DA3C4S6!!

T3A96!! ! U4A114!)IIA1006!! (34GVU4)41VW3D6! !!

X)A!Y`!789@1A6! 2151DFQC1!789@1A6!

!a10! !!7Q!

!a10! !!7Q!

!a10! !!7Q!

!a10! !!7Q!

RU11!3419!b!!3C!3C04A8E43QC0S!

c9)35!BIIA1006!!!!

BA1!GQ8!)E43CP!)0!51)I!EQ8C015!3C!4F30!E)01d!

BA1!GQ8!)E43CP!)0!5QE)5!EQ8C015!3C!4F30!E)01d!!

BA1!GQ8!)!919@1A!QH!4F1!EQ8A4e0!4A3)5!@)Ad!

YH!4F30!E)01!A1)EF10!4A3)5f!g355!GQ8!)E4!)0!4F1!4A3)5!)44QAC1Gd!

YH!4F30!30!)!EA393C)5!E)01f!EF1Eh!GQ8A!04)480i! p14)3C1I!(Q8C015!

BDDQ3C41I!(Q8C015!

YH!)DDQ3C41I!EQ8C015q!)A1!GQ8!

)!!!T1I1A)5!`1H1CI1A!

!!(rB!s)C15!B44QAC1G!

tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!

YC!QAI1A!4Q!)DD1)A!@1HQA1!4F30!uQ8A4!)C!)44QAC1G!9804!134F1A!@1!)!919@1A!3C!PQQI!04)CI3CP!QH!4F30!uQ8A4e0!

P1C1A)5!@)A!QA!@1!PA)C41I!51)v1!4Q!)DD1)A!wxy!)0!DAQv3I1I!HQA!@G!5QE)5!A8510!bi!4FAQ8PF!bii!

Y!I1E5)A1!8CI1A!D1C)54G!QH!D1A8AG!4F)4!4F1!HQA1PQ3CP!30!4A81!)CI!EQAA1E4i!CI1A!!iiuf!4F30!

04)4191C4!8CI1A!D1A8AG!F)0!4F1!0)91!HQAE1!)CI!1HH1E4!)0!)!0gQAC!04)4191C4!9)I1!8CI1A!Q)4Fi!!

c1E841I!QC!

B44QAC1G!03PC)48A16!!!UV!

R01!151E4AQC3E!03PC)48A1!3H!4F1!)DD1)A)CE1!HQA9!30!H351I!151E4AQC3E)55GiS!

p1v301I!!VVef!

ghijkhljmn

onp

qijrhstmjujvmwsxyjlhip

z{|}o|z{~z

vjmhljwshsyqijrhstmjujvmwsxyhphnlm|jojnyvsphvwiiymjxmqjiyjmgjhsyjhssjph}nsymxjhi

jhssyvspjyqijrhstmjhsghjyjmxjxvwymh}umwlliyhm}jijmhssjiijnyh}jp}gshityujmshmtjjnyhi

uhnwiwyghowtpsyws}jhmihlwyhstvmwnlvjmpwsxjmp

hmwjipwiijll

jssjmui}

pihmlmjjl

vw}hxy{|

zz z|zzz| {

xxwiijll¡¢jssjmp}

qmwizzyz{z{

£

£

£

£

hmwjipwiijll

Case: 1:20-cv-02072 Document #: 24 Filed: 04/22/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:594