alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thos. Walden, etc., *v.*Andrew Humphreys.

Judicial Sales — Non-residents—Constructively Summoned.

When a defendant constructively summoned has not been kept away by unavoidable accident or casualty, and no fraud or misconduct on the part of the plaintiff is shown, a judicial sale will not be set aside upon the mere ground that the property did not sell for its full value. If this should be done, it would soon become impossible to enforce judgments rendered in such cases.

Judgments — Non-resident—Revivor—Valid Defense.

■Actions against parties constructively summoned may be revived within five years after judgment, provided such parties have a valid defense to present.

APPEAL PROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

December 6, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

We do not deem it necessary to determine whether or not the action of the court confirming a sale made in pursuance to its own decree, constitute such a judgment, as is contemplated by section 245 of the Civil Code.

*346
      *J. S. Boyd, for appellant.*

*J. L. Griffith, for appellee.*

In the settlement of this litigation it may be conceded that it is, still we are of opinion that the court erred in its final order setting aside such order of confirmation and ordering a re-sale of the property. Actions against parties constructively summoned may within five years after judgment be revived, provided such parties have a valid defense to present.

The only defense appellee attempts to make to the motion for the confirmation of the commissioners sale is that the property sold for an inadequate price. It is not shown that the appellee was kept away by unavoidable accident or casualty, but it clearly appears that his absence was voluntary. No fraud or misconduct upon the part of appellants is shown or attempted to be shown.

The evidence does not satisfy us that this bid for the land was grossly inadequate. Upon this question the evidence is conflicting. If judicial sales are to be set aside in cases of constructive service upon the mere ground that the property did not sell for its full value, it will soon become impossible to enforce judgments rendered in such cases.

The interests of both the plaintiffs and defendants to such actions demand, that these sales shall be upheld, unless the purchaser has been guilty of some misconduct, or the price given is so grossly inadequate as to render it unconscientious for him to retain the property.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss appellees answer and cross petition, and to make such orders as are necessary to quiet the title of the appellants to the lands purchased under this judgment.
#### Lasselle *v.*Moore.

If an execution improvidently issue, — -for example, a fi. fa. without a judgment, or while the defendant’s real estate is held by a venditioni exponas, —it will be set aside on motion at law, due notice of the motion having been given. But a Court of chancery will not interfere, except to stay the proceedings, when necessary, until the motion can be heard.

THIS was a suit in equity, transferred from the *Knox*Circuit Court previously to a decree, in consequence of the interest of the circuit judge. The proceedings against the complainant, on an execution mentioned in the bill, had been enjoined by the Court below, until the hearing of the cause.

*227*Tabbs,*for the complainant.

Scott, *J.*

Lasselle complains in his bill, that an execution-was issued against him and another, in favour of *Moore,*without any judgment to authorize it; and that, after the real estate of one of the defendants had been offered for sale on a venditioni exponas, and the sheriff had returned that the property was not sold for want of bidders, a ft. fa. was sued out and levied on the personal estate of the other defendant.

This is a case properly relievable in a Court of law, by notice and motion to set aside the execution (1). If an execution be issued without a judgment, — or if, while the real estate of the defendants or either of them is held by a venditioni exponas, the plaintiff take out a ft. fa. and levy or be about to levy on other property, — the Circuit Court will set aside such illegal execution on motion.

Should an execution, improvidently issued, press the defendant so closely, that he cannot give ten days’ notice, and have it set aside on motion in a Court of law, he may, by application to the Chancellor, have an injunction, or an order to stay proceedings, till he can be heard. But, except for the purpose of staying proceedings till application can be made to a Court of law, a Court of chancery has nothing to do with it.

*Per Curiam.*

The injunction is dissolved, and the bill dismissed, with costs.

(1)

 Vide *Cline*v. *Green,*ante, p. *53.*— Hedges v. Gray, *May*term, 1829, post.
| Subsidiary Name                                                    | Country        |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
| Full      Art International      Limited                      | Hong      Kong |
| Zhuhai      King Glass Engineering Co., Limited                    | PRC            |
| Zhuhai      King General Glass Engineering Technology Co., Limited | PRC            |
| King      General Engineering (HK) Limited                         | Hong      Kong |
| KGE      Building System Limited                                   | Hong      Kong |
| KGE      Australia Pty Limited                                     | Australia      |
| Zhuhai      City, Xiangzhou District Career Training School        | PRC            |
| Techwell      Engineering Limited                                  | Hong      Kong |
| Techwell      International Limited                                | Macau          |
| Techwell      Building System (Shenzhen) Co. Limited               | PRC            |
| CAE      Building Systems, Inc.                                    | USA            |
| China      Architectural Engineering (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.          | PRC            |
| Techwell      International (SEA) Pte Ltd.                         | Singapore      |

----
**EXHIBIT 10.24**

**SECOND AMENDMENT/ADDENDUM**

**TO OPTION AND JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT**

The Parties,

**TRANSATLANTIC MINING COMPANY,**a corporation existing under the laws of British Columbia, Canada (formerly Archean Star Resources Inc.) **“TCO”**

and

**NORTHERN ADVENTURES,L.L.C**., a limited liability company existing under the laws of the state of Idaho. **“NALLC”**

and

**AMERICAN CORDILLERA MINING CORPORATION and AMCOR EXPLORATION INC**. (AMCOR) a wholly owned subsidiary of AMERICAN CORDILLERA MINING CORPORATION**. “AMCOR”**

**Agreement**

February 5, 2013, the Parties entered into an “OPTION AND JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT”. 

**First Amendment/Addendum**

July 22, 2014, The Parties entered into a “MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING”

**Second Amendment/Addendum**

March 10, 2015, The Parties have entered into this “Second Amendment/Addendum

The Parties by mutual assent amend, modify and supplement the Agreement and prior Amendments/Addendums to the Agreement as follows. 

Where applicable, this Amendment/Addendum supersedes any prior terms or conditions governing the same subject matter. 

All prior agreed terms and conditions not Amended herein remain in full force and effect.

For an additional total consideration of 1.5 million (One-Million Five-Hundred Thousand) common shares in the capital stock of Transatlantic Mining Company 

----

and the total payment of $25,000 (twenty-five thousand)  to NALLC/ AMCOR, the parties agree to the following amendment:

**“Parties”**

**All reference to Archean Star Resources “Archean Star” shall now be amended to Transatlantic Mining Company “TCO” formerly Archean Star Resources.**

**3.3**

**OPTION**

(e) Initial Expenditure obligation of US$700,000 is deemed satisfied by all parties.

(f) TCO shall incur not less than an aggregate of US$700,000 of Expenditures between February 5, 2015-February 5, 2016. 

(g) TCO shall incur not less than an aggregate of US$700,000 of Expenditures between February 5, 2016-February 5, 2017.

TCO shall tender additional consideration within 20 days of execution of this agreement to accounts and parties as directed by NALLC and AMCOR.  TCO shall also present an updated accounting of all expenditures incurred on the Monitor and Big Elk/Brushy Creek properties within 30 days.  

As approved this 12th day of March, 2015:

Transatlantic Mining Company

/s/ Robert Tindall

__________________________________________

Authorized Signing Representative

date

Northern Adventures, LLC

/s/ Martin Clemets

__________________________________________

Authorized Signing Representative

date

American Cordillera Mining and AMCOR

/s/ Frank Blair

_________________________________________

Authorized Signing Representative

date

Second Amendment/Addendum to

Option and Joint Venture and Prior Amendments/Addendums thereto

2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 936 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 936

To authorize further appropriations for the stabilization and repair of 
damages to the Mountain Quarries Railroad Bridge, commonly known as No 
 Hands Bridge, caused by the heavy rains and flooding in California in 
                    December 1996 and January 1997.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 1997

Mr. Doolittle introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize further appropriations for the stabilization and repair of 
damages to the Mountain Quarries Railroad Bridge, commonly known as No 
 Hands Bridge, caused by the heavy rains and flooding in California in 
                    December 1996 and January 1997.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Hands Bridge Restoration Act of 
1997''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE STABILIZATION AND 
              REPAIR OF NO HANDS BRIDGE.

    (a) Authorization.--In addition to any other amounts authorized or 
available, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
the Interior $700,000 for the stabilization and repair of damages to 
the Mountain Quarries Railroad Bridge, commonly known as No Hands 
Bridge, caused by heavy rains and flooding in California in December 
1996 and January 1997.
    (b) Use.--Amounts may be appropriated under this section for, among 
other activities, the following:
            (1) The immediate stabilization and expeditious opening of 
        the bridge for such annual events as the Western States 100 
        Mile Endurance Run and the Tevis Cup.
            (2) The permanent repair of the bridge's east pier as 
        necessary to allow for unrestricted use of the bridge.
    (c) Future Use.--Nothing in this section or any future use or 
designation of the Mountain Quarries Bridge shall preclude the future 
development of the Auburn Dam Project.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2

# 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 Quarterly
Report of NB Capital Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Jean Dagenais, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
| | -- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | /s/ Jean Dagenais
Jean Dagenais 
Chief Financial Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------

Date:   May 13, 2005

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.

---
92279278.1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NORWEGIAN AIR SHUTTLE ASA and 

ARCTIC AVIATION ASSETS DAC,

Plaintiffs, v.

THE BOEING COMPANY and BOEING 

COMMERCIAL AVIATION SERVICES 

EUROPE LIMITED,

Defendants.

No. 

BOEING’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Defendant The Boeing Company (“Boeing”) files the following corporate disclosure 

statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 and Local Rule 3.2(a).

1. Boeing has no parent corporation.

2. As of May 28, 2020, no corporation has filed a Schedule 13 with the U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing ownership of ten percent or more of Boeing’s 

stock.

3. Additionally, the following corporations have disclosed, in filings with the U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission, beneficial ownership of 5% or more of the outstanding 

stock of The Boeing Company as of December 31, 2019: (1) The Vanguard Group; (2) T. Rowe 

Price Associates, Inc.; (3) Newport Trust Company; and (4) BlackRock, Inc.

Respectfully submitted,

THE BOEING COMPANY

By: s/ Kathleen A. Stetsko

One of Its Attorneys

Case: 1:20-cv-04108 Document #: 4 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:98
92279278.1 -2-

Eric B. Wolff

PERKINS COIE LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900

Seattle, WA 98101-3099

Telephone: 206.359.8000

Fax: 206.359.9000

Email: EWolff@perkinscoie.com

Kathleen A. Stetsko

PERKINS COIE LLP

131 S Dearborn Street # 1700

Telephone: 312.324.8400

Fax: 312.324.9400

Email: KStetsko@perkinscoie.com

Case: 1:20-cv-04108 Document #: 4 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:99
92279278.1 -3-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Kathleen A. Stetsko, certify that on July 13, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

BOEING’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT with the Clerk of the Court using 

the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all attorneys of record. 

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

/s/ Kathleen A. Stetsko

PERKINS COIE LLP

131 South Dearborn Street, Suite No. 1700

Chicago, Illinois 60603-5559

Tel: (312) 324-8400

Fax: (312) 324-9400

Case: 1:20-cv-04108 Document #: 4 Filed: 07/13/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:100
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50009 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. S A L VA D O R L O P E Z , J R ., D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 3 : 0 7
- CR- 2 1 1 0
- ALL
B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * S a lv a d o rL o p e z , J r . , w a s c o n v i c t e do f o n e c o u n to f

i mp o r t i n g1 0 0 k i l o g r a ms orm or e o f

m ar ij uana i nt o t he U n i ted S tat es and one c ountof pos se ss i ng 100 kil ogram s orm o re o f m arij u an a w i t h i n t en tt o di st ribu t e. Th e di st ri ctcourt sentenced h i m t o serve 120 m on t h s i n pri son an d a 10 year t erm of sup ervi sed r e l e a s e . L o p e z c h a l l e n g e s h i s t e r m o f s u p e r v i s e dr e l e a s e i n t h i s a p p e a l
. H e argu es t h at hi s t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease i s un reasona bl e becau se i ti s great er th a n n e c e s s a r yto m e e t t h e g o a ls o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50009

2 W e r e vi e w t hi s i s s ue f o r pl ai n e r r o r o nl y due t o Lop e z ’ s fai l ur e t o pr e s e nt it t o th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. A l l i son , 447 F
. 3d 402 , 405 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)
. To sh ow pl ai n err or, L opez m u stshow a for feited err or t h at i s c l ear or o b v io u s a n dth a t a ffe c ts h is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . P u cket tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 129 S. Ct
. 1 42 3, 1 42 9 ( 20 09 )
. I f he m ak e s such a s ho w i ng, t hi s c o ur tha s t he di s c r e t i o n t o c o r r e c t t he e r r o r but w i l l do s o o nl y i f t he e r r o rs e r i o us l y af fe c t s t he fai rness, i n t egri t y, or pu bl i c r epu t ati on of j u di ci alproceedi n gs. I d. O urr e vi e w o f

t he r e c o r d s ho w s t hatL o pe z has notm e tt hi s st and ar d. The 1 0 ye a r su p erv i sed r e l ea se term i m p ose dbythe distri ct cou rt w a s w i th i n bo th t h e s t a t u t o r ya n da p p li c a b le g u id e li n e r a n g e s . F u r t h e r , t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s c om m ent s ats ent enc i n g s how t hati tc ons i der ed t he fac t or s given i n § 35 53( a) w he n c ho o s i ng t hi s t e r m . Lo pe z ha s no ts ho w n pl ai n e r r o rw i t h r e s pe c tt o t he d is tr i c tc o u r t’s im p o s itio n o f a 1 0 y e a rte r m o f s u p e r v is e dre le a s e . SeeG al lv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S. C t . 586, 597 ( 2007) ; P u ck ett , 129 S. C t . at1429. T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.
##### 



Citizens Effingham Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2004 Exhibit 32.1 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Citizens Effingham Bancshares,
Inc. and Subsidiary (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March
31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Harry H. Shearouse, President and Chief Executive
Officer, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and(2)
    
    To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company. May 11, 2004 /s/Harry H. Shearouse  Harry H. Shearouse
President and Chief Executive Officer
Case: 1:20-cv-03871 Document #: 14 Filed: 08/17/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:39
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 779

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the percentage

depletion allowance for certain hardrock mines.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 13, 1997

Mr. MILLER of California (for himself and Mr. RAHALL) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the percentage depletion allowance for certain hardrock

mines.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Elimination of Double

5 Subsidies for the Hardrock Mining Industry Act of 1997’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN

7 HARDROCK MINES.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section

9 611(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended

10 by inserting after ‘‘mines’’ the following: ‘‘(except for
2

•HR 779 IH

1 hardrock mines located on land currently subject to the

2 general mining laws or on lands patented under the gen3 eral mining laws)’’.

4 (b) GENERAL MINING LAW DEFINED.—Section 611

5 of such Code is amended by redesignating subsection (c)

6 as subsection (d) and inserting after subsection (b) the

7 following new subsection:

8 ‘‘(c) GENERAL MINING LAW DEFINED.—For pur9 poses of subsection (a), the term ‘general mining laws’

10 means those Acts which are generally codified as chapters

11 2, 12A, and 16, and sections 161 and 162 of title 30 of

12 the United States Code.’’

13 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

14 The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to

15 taxable years beginning after December 31, 1996.

Æ
**EXHIBIT31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Steven D. Hunt, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-K of U.S. Premium Beef, LLC; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisannual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant's othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosedin this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant's othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): 

 

a) allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

|   |   |                                                  |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| By:    |   |  /s/ Steven D. Hunt                              |
|   |   |  Steven D. Hunt

* Chief Executive Officer* |

 

Date: November 14, 2007