alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James McLaughlan *v.*James C. Howard, etc.

Ejectment — Vendee Occupies No Better Position than His Vendor.

If appellant’s vendor sanctioned the erection of the partition wall, he cannot occupy a more favorable position than he might if he had not conveyed the property.

Ejectment — Action—Adverse Holding — Acceptance of Deed.

If the defendant’s position was that of an adverse holder and claimant of the ground, when the appellant accepted the deed, the plaintiff could not maintain his action.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 21, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

The evidence conduces to the conclusion that L. N. Sevians, the appellant’s insolvent vendor, sanction the erection of the wall by Howard as a party wall; and if his coparceners did not also agree to or sanction it, they conveyed their interest to him, and he conveyed them, together with his own, as one of D. Sevians’ heirs, after the erection of the wall, to the appellants. Thus acquiring the title we' do not see how he can occupy a more favorable position in this case than his vendor might if he had not conveyed the property.

It seems to us, if the attitude of the defendant was that of an amicable occupant of the ground in dispute under the agreement for the erection of a party wall, that agreement should protect him from a recovery in this action at law, instituted as it was, without a demand for possession or an offer to rescind the agreement on equitable terms; and if his position was that of an *444adverse holder and claimant of the ground when the appellant accepted the deed of L. N. Sevians, the plaintiff could not maintain his action. The instructions and rulings of the court with reference to the facts disclosed, if liable to some criticism, were, in our opinion, substantially correct, and the motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

*Fish, for appellant.*

*Benton, for appellees.*

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
#### Thomas Dugan *v.*John W. Gauman’s Admr.

Vendor and Purchaser — Rescission of Contract — Failure to Have Sale Confirmed.

Gauman purchased property at a judicial sale, subject .to confirmation, and sold the land to Dugan, who sold to King for .$250 profit. Gauman’s sale was not confirmed, but a resale ordered. Gauman died, and Dugan bought at the second sale for $2,600. In a suit to recover his loss from Gauman’s estate,held, that as he had not made actual payment on the first purchase, he could not recover damages.

APPEAL PROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT.

September 23, 1870.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin :

John W. Gauman, being tbe accepted bidder at a decretal sale of 33% acres of land, which remained to be confirmed, and the price to be paid, sold and undertook to convey it to the appellant, Thomas Dugan, for $2,000, no part of which was paid, though the appellant took possession of the land under his purchase, and subsequently sold the land to B. E. King for $2250, which King paid him.

Gauman, in the meantime, died, and his purchase not having been confirmed, was set aside, and a sale ordered, at which Dugan, in order to obtain the title for King, became the purchaser of the land for $2600, of which, under an agreement between him and King, the latter paid $100 and Dugan $2500.

This suit was brought by Dugan to recover of Gauman’s estate the amount of the difference between the price which Dugan agreed to pay Gauman and that at which he subsequently purchased. The law and facts being submitted to the court, the petition was dismissed, and Dugan has appealed from that judgment.

The principle is well settled that where there is an inabilty to convey, without fraud, or where there has been an eviction of a vendee the value of the land *to be ascertained by the price paid*is the measure of damages. If the appellant had paid to Gauman the price he agreed to pay him, he would on the failure *118of Gauman to acquire and convey the title, have been entitled to recover back the amount of the purchase price paid, but having paid nothing, the court below rightly adjudged that he. was entitled to nor recovery, although in consequence of what seems to have been intended as a speculation, he appears by the subsequent transaction to have lost $250, instead of making that sum.

Dulen, *for appellant.*

*Ireland, for appellee.*

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1
                              KONGZHONG CORPORATION
              (Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands)

Number
                                                                          Shares

                    US$500,000.00 Share Capital divided into
       999,419,000,000 Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.0000005 each
 231,000,000 Series A Preferred Shares of a par value of US$0.0000005 each and
     350,000,000 Series B Preferred Shares of par value of US$0.0000005 each

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT _____________________________________________________
is the registered holder of _________________________________________________

          Shares in the above-named Company subject to the memorandum and
articles of association thereof.

GIVEN UNDER the common seal of the said Company on               2004.

THE COMMON SEAL of the said Company was hereunto affixed in the presence of:

             CHAIRMAN                 _____________________________________

THE SALE, PLEDGE, HYPOTHECATION OR TRANSFER OF THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY
THIS CERTIFICATE IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SHAREHOLDERS
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE SHAREHOLDER, THE COMPANY, CERTAIN AFFILIATES OF THE
COMPANY AND CERTAIN SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY. COPIES OF SUCH AGREEMENT MAY BE
OBTAINED UPON WRITTEN REQUEST TO THE SECRETARY OF THE COMPANY.
<PAGE>

           TRANSFER

I                                       (the Transferor) for the value received

DO HEREBY transfer to                                      (the Transferee) the

undertaking called                            shares standing in my name in the

To hold the same unto the Transferee

Dated

Signed by the Transferor

in the presence of:

_______________________________         __________________________________
Witness                                 Transferor
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 927

AN ACT

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide

the Attorney General.for appointment of United States marshals by
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 927

AN ACT

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for appointment of United States marshals by the Attorney

General.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 927 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘United States Mar3 shals Service Improvement Act of 1997’’.

4 SEC. 2. APPOINTMENTS OF MARSHALS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 37 of title 28, United

6 States Code, is amended—

7 (1) in section 561(c)—

8 (A) by striking ‘‘The President shall ap9 point, by and with the advice and consent of the

10 Senate,’’ and inserting ‘‘The Attorney General

11 shall appoint’’; and

12 (B) by inserting ‘‘United States marshals

13 shall be appointed subject to the provisions of

14 title 5 governing appointments in the competi15 tive civil service, and shall be paid in accord16 ance with the provisions of chapter 51 and sub17 chapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating

18 to classification and pay rates.’’ after the first

19 sentence;

20 (2) by striking subsection (d) of section 561;

21 (3) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g),

22 (h), and (i) of section 561 as subsections (d), (e),

23 (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and

24 (4) by striking section 562.

25 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections

26 at the beginning of chapter 37 of title 28, United States
3

•HR 927 EH

1 Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section

2 562.

3 SEC. 3. TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS; PRESIDENTIAL AP4 POINTMENT OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES

5 MARSHALS.

6 (a) INCUMBENT MARSHALS.—Notwithstanding the

7 amendments made by this Act, each marshal appointed

8 under chapter 37 of title 28, United States Code, before

9 the date of the enactment of this Act shall, unless that

10 marshal resigns or is removed by the President, continue

11 to perform the duties of that office until the expiration

12 of that marshal’s term and the appointment of a succes13 sor.

14 (b) VACANCIES AFTER ENACTMENT.—Notwithstand15 ing the amendments made by this Act, with respect to the

16 first vacancy which occurs in the office of United States

17 marshal in any district, during the period beginning on

18 the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on De19 cember 31, 1999, the President shall appoint, by and with

20 the advice and consent of the Senate, a marshal to fill

21 that vacancy for a term of 4 years. Any marshal appointed

22 by the President under this subsection shall, unless that

23 marshal resigns or is removed from office by the Presi24 dent, continue to perform the duties of that office after
4

•HR 927 EH

1 the end of the four-year term to which such marshal was

2 appointed or until a successor is appointed.

Passed the House of Representatives March 18,

1997.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Carlos A. Riva, the Chief Executive
Officer of Verenium Corporation (the Company), and James E. Levine, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Periodic
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                |  |  |  |                                                     
|----------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 9, 2010                           |  |  |  |                                                     
|                                                |  | 
|/s/ Carlos A. Riva                              |  |  |  | /s/ James E. Levine                                 
|Carlos A. Riva                                  |  |  |  | James E. Levine                                     
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This
certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Verenium Corporation under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 329 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     November 13, 1997.
    Resolved, That, upon the adoption of this resolution, the House shall be 
considered to have taken from the Speaker's table the bill S. 562, together with 
the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the text of the bill, and to have 
concurred in the Senate amendment with an amendment as follows:
    In the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment, at the end of 
section 304 add the following new subsection:
    (c) Applicability.--This section shall apply only during the period 
beginning on October 1, 1997, and ending at the end of March 31, 1998.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

EDWARD F. PARKS, )

) Case No. 2:16-cv-00090-GMN-NJK

Plaintiff(s), )

) TRANSFER ORDER

vs. )

)

CHRISTY D. JOHNSON, et al., )

)

Defendant(s). )

 )

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and proposed

complaint. Docket Nos. 1, 3, 3-1. The federal venue statute requires that a civil action be brought in

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state where the

district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3)

a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is

commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

If a case has been filed in the wrong district, the district court in which the case has been incorrectly filed

has the discretion to transfer such case to any district in which it could have been brought. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1406(a); see also Feldmann v. Dane County Jail, et al., 3:15-cv-00125-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Mar. 25,

2015) (Docket No. 3).

In this case, Plaintiff’s claims arise out of his imprisonment in Arizona and alleged inability to

obtain services from a hospital in Tucson, Arizona, see, e.g., Docket No. 3-1 at 1, as well as alleged 

Case 4:16-cv-00083-RCC-PSOT Document 5 Filed 02/09/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

events involving the Bull Head City Police in Bull Head City, Arizona, see, e.g., Docket No. 1 at 2-3. 

None of the above venue provisions renders this Court a proper venue in this case. 

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court transfer this matter to

the District of Arizona and that this case be closed.1, 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2016

NANCY J. KOPPE

United States Magistrate Judge

1 An order transferring venue does not address the merits of the case and, therefore, is a

nondispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge’s authority under 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(A). See Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1241 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (collecting

cases); see also Ross v. Lane Community College, 2014 WL 3783942, *4 (D. Nev. July 31, 2014) (holding

that a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is a nondispositive matter).

2

It appears that Plaintiff’s case is subject to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Parks v.

McCluskey, 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 57555 (D. Ariz. May 24, 2010) (finding Plaintiff’s filing of numerous

unmeritorious cases subjected him to the requirements of § 1915(g)). Nonetheless, because the proper venue

for this case is in Arizona, the undersigned leaves this issue for that Court to address.

2

Case 4:16-cv-00083-RCC-PSOT Document 5 Filed 02/09/16 Page 2 of 2
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 4570

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. WALTER LEE EARLY , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , Chief District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr - 00076

- WO

- 1 )

Submitted : May 30, 2017 Decided: June 8, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and MOTZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Craig M. Cooley, COOLEY LAW OFFICE, Cary, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, Acting United States Attorney, Robert M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Walter Lee Early appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 12 months’ imprisonment and a subsequent term of 24 months’ supervised release. Early contends that insufficient evidence supported the court’s finding that Early violated a condition of supervised release. W e affirm. A court may revoke supervised release if it “finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant v iolated a condition of su pervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2012). “We review a district court’s ultimate decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release for abuse of discretion” and its “factual findings underlying a revocation for clear err or.” United States v. Padgett , 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th Cir. ), c ert. denied , 136 S. Ct. 494 ( 2015); see United States v. Alvarado , 840 F.3d 184, 189 (4th Cir. 2016) (providing standard for abuse of discretion). The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Early violated his supervised release by committing an affray or , alternatively , an assault , in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14

- 33(a) (2015)

. In his opening brief, Early challenges only the court’s affray finding. Although Early’s re ply brief also challenges the court’s assault finding, “generally we will not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief.” United States v. Copeland , 7 07 F.3d 522, 530 (4th Cir. 201 3 ). Moreover, the record clearly establishes by

a preponderance of the evidence that Early engaged in an assault, thereby violating a condition of supervised release. Thus, we need not address the affray issue in order to conclude that revocation was not an abuse of the court’s discretion.3 Accordingly, w e affirm the district court’s revocation judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order filed October 27 , 2020

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00034

- CV

____________ JENEA ANN MUNGIA , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cau se No. 1459495



### ORDER
On February 26 , 2020, appellant ’ s motion to w aive oral argument and delay submission pending dismissal of this appeal was granted. As of this date, the parties have not filed a motion to dismiss the appeal or other dispositive motion
, or a motion to reinstate the appeal

.2

Unless within 20 days of the date of this order, any party to the appeal files a motion demonstrating go od cause to retain this appeal, this appeal will be reinstated and dismissed for want of prosecution. Tex. R. Ap p. P. 4 2.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Ch ristopher, Jewell, and Spain

.
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 Annual Report of Otelco Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael D. Weaver,
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
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/
      Michael D. WeaverMichael
      D. Weaver
              President
      & Chief Executive OfficerMarch
      8, 2010





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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001049103
<NAME> EASTPORT RED'S INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,558
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,558
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              938
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,380)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,558
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,235
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  19
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,254)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,254)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,254)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
H. Res. 301

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

November 13 (legislative day, November 12), 1997.

Resolved, That (a) clause 3(f) of rule XI of the Rules of

the House of Representatives is amended by repealing subdivision (2) and by redesignating subdivisions (3) through

(13) as subdivisions (2) through (12), respectively.

(b) Clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives is amended by striking ‘‘, except as provided by clause 3(f)(2)’’.

(c) The first sentence of clause 3(e) of rule XI of the

Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by striking

‘‘, except as provided in paragraph (f)(2)’’.

Attest:

Clerk.