alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert D. Chambers *v.*George D. Posey.

Contracts — Actions on — Reply—Conditions Precedent.

The appellant brought this action on a contract for the purchase of a 'lot of mules from appellee for which he agreed to execute his note without alleging that he had performed his part of the contract.

Held, that the court should have instructed the jury to find for the defendant as the pleadings authorized a judgment in his favor.

APPEAL EROM I-IENDERSON CIRCUIT COURT.

April 24, 1871.

Eaves, *for appellant.*

Vance, *for appellee.*

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The admission of the appellant, in his reply to the appellee’s answer and cross-petition, together with the written agreement exhibited, with the reply, show conclusively that the appellant’s claim to the four mules was solely denied tinder and by virtue of the contract made January 18,1870, which stipulates that on that day the appellee, G. I). Posey, sold to appellant various articles of personal property for sums amounting in the. aggregate to $1,524, of which he paid down $465, and was to give his note for the balance of $1,059 payable twelve months thereafter, and that he did not receive the possession of the property, nor deliver or tender the note before he brought this action for the recovery of the mules. This court is of the opinion that before the plaintiff could maintain an action to recover the possession of the mules he was bound to perform his part of the agreement by giving or offering to give his note, and upon the pleadings alone the court might have properly instructed the jury to find for the defendant, as to the claim to recover the possession of the mules, and this being the extent of the verdict rendered, and the judgment of the court, it is not material or necessary to inquire whether the rulings of the court as to the evidence and instructions given and refused were correct or not; the result being as favorable to the appellant as the pleadings authorized.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*

Judge Lindsay dissenting.
DATE:             September 23, 2003

TO:               Geoff Ribar

FROM:             Steve Schwartz

RE:               Addendum to Separation Agreement dated September 11, 2003



The following is agreed to become part of the Separation Agreement entered into
between Asyst Technologies, Inc. and Geoff Ribar on September 11, 2003.

RIBAR'S ASSISTANCE FOLLOWING SEPARATION DATE. Following the Separation Date, and
for the period not to exceed two (2) years thereafter, you agree to make
yourself available as reasonably requested by the Company, through its Chief
Executive Officer and/or General Counsel, to provide information and/or
assistance in conjunction with past or pending matters in which you were
involved or had responsibility during your employment with the Company, subject
to your availability. This may include being reasonably available to assist in
the pending arbitration proceeding brought against the Company by Mihir Parikh
(and any later-filed related civil, administrative or other proceedings),
including making yourself available to counsel for the Company and to provide
testimony as a witness in any such proceeding. Such requested assistance shall
not, absent your agreement, exceed thirty (30) hours in any given calendar
month. The Company shall reimburse you for all reasonable and actual
out-of-pocket expenses, and shall compensate you for your time actually incurred
at a rate to be agreed to by you and the Company (but which rate shall not be
less than $200.00 per hour of your time).



/s/ Stephen S. Schwartz                     September 23, 2003
-------------------------------------       -----------------------------------
Stephen S. Schwartz                         Date
Chairman & CEO



AGREED AND ACCEPTED:


/s/ Geoffrey Ribar                          9/23/2003
--------------------------------------      -----------------------------------
Geoffrey Ribar                              Date
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

CARLA and BRIAN SNYDER,

 Plaintiffs

 vs.

BOARD OF EDUCATION for BEECHER 

SCHOOL DISTRICT 201 U, et al, 

 

 Defendants 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 20 CV 03794

HON. CHARLES R. NORGLE

MAG. KIM B. YOUNG

TO: All Parties of Record

 

NOTICE OF FILING AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On June 30, 2021, I filed plaintiffs’ status report via the Clerk of the Court’s 

efiling system.

I, Steven Glink, do hereby certify that I served the above-referenced response upon the 

parties named above by e-mail by 5:00 pm on June 30, 2021.

By: s/ Steven Glink

Steven E. Glink

Law Offices of Steven E. Glink, ARDC # 6180869

Attorney for Plaintiff

PO Box 1053

Northbrook, Illinois 60062

847/480-7749 (voice)

Email: steve@educationrights.com

Case: 1:20-cv-03794 Document #: 18-1 Filed: 06/30/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:93
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

Subsidiaries of theCompany

 
| **Entity**                                       | ** ** | **State of Incorporation** |
|--------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------|
|                                             |       |                       |
| Acapulco  Restaurants, Inc.                 |       | Delaware                   |
|                                             |       |                       |
| El Torito  Restaurants, Inc.                |       | Delaware                   |
|                                             |       |                       |
| El Torito  Franchising Company                   |       | Delaware                   |
|                                             |       |                       |
| El Paso Cantina, Inc.                       |       | California                 |
|                                             |       |                       |
| Murray Pacific                                   |       | California                 |
|                                             |       |                       |
| TARV, Inc.                                  |       | California                 |
|                                             |       |                       |
| ALA Design, Inc.                            |       | California                 |
|                                             |       |                       |
| Acapulco  Restaurant of Westwood, Inc.      |       | California                 |
|                                             |       |                       |
| Acapulco  Restaurant of Moreno Valley, Inc. |       | California                 |
|                                             |       |                       |
| Acapulco  Restaurant of Ventura, Inc.       |       | California                 |
|                                             |       |                       |
| Acapulco  Restaurant of Downey, Inc.        |       | California                 |
|                                             |       |                       |
| Acapulco  Restaurants of Encinitas, Inc.    |       | California                 |
|                                             |       |                       |
| Acapulco Mark  Corp.                             |       | Delaware                   |
|                                             |       |                       |
| Real Mex Foods, Inc.                        |       | California                 |
|                                             |       |                       |
| CKR Acquisition  Corp.                           |       | Delaware                   |
|                                             |       |                       |
| Chevys  Restaurants, LLC                         |       | Delaware                   |

 

----
#### James H. HILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 04-7242.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 21, 2004.

James H. Hill, Appellant pro se. John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

*887PER CURIAM.

James H. Hill seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00536

- CR

M ICHAEL C HRISTOPHER T ORRES

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from

County Criminal Court No. 8

of T arrant County ( 1434598 )

September 3, 2020

Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the tria l

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

___________________ Justice Mike Wallach
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, YU-EN CHIU, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of Kid
Castle Educational Corporation (the "Registrant"), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended September 30, 2003 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.

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



                                                             /s/ Yu-En Chiu
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Name: Yu-En Chiu
                                                         Date: November 14, 2003
9843.

#### Clements *v.*The State.

Decided October 8, 1918.

Certiorari; from Jones superior court—Judge Park. April 30, 1918. '

*R. C. Jenkins, R. I>. Stubbs,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

The answer of the trial judge to the petition for certiorari was neither traversed nor excepted to. The evidence, as set forth in the answer, with the legal inferences and deductions arising therefrom, authorized the finding of the trial judge, exercising by consent the functions of both judge and jury; and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*
#### Joseph Wells *v.*Noah Morris.

Specific Performance — Vendor and Purchaser — Deficit in Land Sold — Sale in Gross.

The sale of the land by appellant to appellee was in gross, but they did not contemplate more than the usual rate of excess or deficit.

Held, that in a case like this, a specific execution of a contract of sale will not be enforced where the deficit is as great as 33 per cent, of the estimated quantity of the land sold.

APPEAL PROM: EDMONSONi CIRCUIT COURT.

March 12, 1872.

*V. H. Jones, for appellant.*

*R. Rodes, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The sale of the tract of land by Wells to Morris was certainly a sale in gross, but’ we are of opinion from the proof in the case, as to locality, value, price and of the conversations between the parties that they did not contemplate or intend to risk more than the usual rates of excess or deficit, although it is apparent that Morris did not expect, and that he had no right to expect that the tract contained full one hundred acres. But he certainly did not calculate that upon actual measurements it would be found that there were only sixty seven and one-half acres.

We are aware of no case like this in which a specific execution of a contract of sale has been enforced, where the deficit was as great as 33 per cent, of the estimated quantity of land sold.

There is nothing in this case to take it out of the general rule, and we cannot conclude that the chancellor erred in refusing to compel a specific execution of the contract.

His judgment must be therefore affirmed.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

2006-1637 

CAPITAL BRIDGE CO., LTD., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

IVL TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

MEMCORP, INC. and CRAIG ELECTRONICS, INC., 

Defendants. 

Brian L. Wamsley, Goodwin Procter LLP, of New York, New York, argued for 

plaintiff-appellant. On the brief was Anthony H. Handal, Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels, 

LLP, of New York, New York. 

Daniel P. Burke, Daniel P. Burke & Associates, PLLC, of Hauppauge, New York, 

argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Georgia Damoulakis. 

 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 

Judge Kenneth M. Karas 
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

 2006-1637 

CAPITAL BRIDGE CO., LTD., 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

IVL TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., 

 Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

MEMCORP, INC. And CRAIG ELECTRONICS, INC., 

 Defendants. 

 Judgment

ON APPEAL from the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

 New York 

in CASE NO(S). 04-CV-4002 

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

Per Curiam (MICHEL, Chief Judge, SCHALL, Circuit Judge, and BUCKLOi, 

District Judge). 

 AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36. 

 

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

DATED: August 10, 2007 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly, Clerk 

 

i

 Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, District Judge, United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§ 1350)




I,
Charles E. Ramey, of US Dataworks, Inc. certify pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:




(i)                 the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the
“Report”), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and




(ii)                 the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of US Dataworks, Inc. as of
the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.




Dated:
      February 22, 2011/s/ Charles E. RameyCharles
      E. RameyChief
      Executive Officer
#### Chamberlain & Tapp *v.*W. J. Brewer, etc.

Trials — Law and Facts Submitted to Court.

Where the law and facts are submitted to the court it acts in the double capacity of judge and jury, and its finding is entitled to the weight of the verdict of a jury, which will not be disturbed unless palpably against the .evidence.

Sheriffs and Constable — Bond Void Where Sureties Were Induced to Sign the Bond Under Misapprehension.

If Watkins and other sureties of the sheriff were induced to believe that the name of Brewer, affixed to the bond before their signatures, was his act and deed, and the same was not his act, and did not bind him, then their own attempted execution of the bond was not obligatory on them.

APPEAL FROM HENRY CIRCUIT COURT.

October 6, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

This case is here for the third time in this court on the appeal of the present appellants. The decision of the first appeal (3 *Bush*561) was in effect, that if Watkins and other sureties of the sheriff were induced to believe that the name of D. L. Brewer, affixed to the bond before their own signatures, was his act and deed, and that the same was not his act and did not bind him, then their own attempted execution of the bond was not obligatory on them. A trial of the case in conformity to that decision resulted in a judgment for the defendants, which in an opinion manifesting much hesitation a majority of this court reversed, and remanded the cause with instructions to bring the representative of D. L. Brewer before the court; which was done, and upon another trial on the evidence previously adduced and additional testimony for the defendants, a judgment was again rendered for them.

In view of the fact that the court to which the law and facts were submitted acted in the double capacity of judge and jury, and its judgment is entitled to the weight of the verdict of a jury, which ought not to be disturbed unless palpably against *7the evidence; and that that is the same decision of the court below, in favor of appellants on the facts, we do not feel at liberty in view of all the evidence to reverse the judgment. Therefore the judgment is'affirmed.

*Pryor &*Barber, *for appellants.*

Scott, *for appellee.*

Judge Pryor not sitting.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 B&G Foods,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  April 3, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, David
L.  Wenner,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:

              (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/ David L. Wenner
-----------------------
David L. Wenner
Chief Executive Officer
April 19, 2004
Exhibit
      32.1






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 Global Materials & Services, Inc., a
      Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended June
      30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, Raoul L. Carroll, Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.




Global
              Materials & Services, Inc.
              (formerly
                known as American Fire Retardant Corp.)Date:
                January 24, 2006
            
            By:/s/Raoul
                J. Carroll
              Title
                Chief Executive
                Officer
Case 2:15-cr-01584-JJT Document 3 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01584-JJT Document 3 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01584-JJT Document 3 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 369 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     February 25, 1998.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and that they are hereby, 
elected to the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Small Business: Ms. Velazquez to rank directly above Mr. 
Sisisky.
    Committee on Banking and Financial Services: That the powers and duties 
conferred upon the ranking minority member by House rules shall be exercised by 
the next senior member until otherwise ordered by the House.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

Eastern Division

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−03758

Honorable Thomas M. Durkin

Long Leaf Trading Group, Inc., et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, March 19, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: On the request of the

CFTC, the following expert discovery deadlines are entered. The close of fact discovery

will be 6/30/2021. The deadline to exchange expert reports, if any, will be 8/11/2021. The

deadline to exchange expert rebuttal reports, if any, will be 9/22/2021. The close of expert

discovery will be 10/6/2021. Mailed notice. (ecw, )

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-03758 Document #: 66 Filed: 03/19/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:503