alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lichty *v.*Faisst.

Opinion delivered November 18, 1929.

*430I. *J. Friedman*and *Dean, Moore & Brasil,*for appellant.

*G. B. Colvin,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.

(alfter stating the facts). Appellant insists that the court erred in not directing a verdict in his favor, and the contention should be sustained. Appellee *431admitted the execution of the conditional sales contract for the machine sold him by Lichty reserving the title to the ice-plant machine until paid for, and default made in the payment, and made no allegation of any defense' to the claim for possession further than to deny that appellant was the party from whom he purchased the machine, and entitled to the possession of the property under the contract made. He alleged no defense to the suit, obviously one to collect the balance of the purchase money due under the contract of sale, by way of counterclaim or set-off, as he had the right to do (§ 8654a, C. & M. Digest; *Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.*v. *Culberson,*178 Ark. 957, 12 S. W. (2d) 903; *Boddy*v. *Thompson,*179 Ark. 71, 14 S. W. (2d) 240), and admitted having made default in the payment of the purchase money under the terms of the contract he executed. In other words, he admitted making the purchase of the property, the execution of the conditional sales contract retaining the title by the seller until paid for, having made payments of the purchase money under its terms, and only claimed that it had not been executed to Lichty as it appeared to have been in the signature upon the original contract.

The undisputed testimony showed that Lichty had purchased and paid for the plant or machine sold by him to appellee, that it was invoiced and delivered to the appellee ‘by Lichty under the name of one of his trading companies, and that no one else had any interest in or claim upon the property under the conditional sales contract with appellee at the time of the suit brought, and that appellee had made default in the payments under the contract warranting the recovery of the property in the replevin suit by the owner for the collection of the balance of the purchase money due.

The court should have granted a peremptory instruction in appellant’s favor, and for his failure to do so the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment for appellant for the possession of the property or its value, the amount of *432the purchase money still dne under the sales contract. It is so ordered.
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 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                Registrant. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                              |                                               |                              |
|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                         |                                          |                         |
| Date:              April 16, 2007 | By:                                      | /s/              Michel St-Pierre |
|                              | Name:              Michel St-Pierre                |
|                              | Title:              Acting Chief Financial Officer |

----
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for: 

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No 

 Yes No 

 Yes No 

 Yes No 

(See item 3 in instructions) 

Email Address: 

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case? 

Are you acting as local counsel in this case? 

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar? 

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel 

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel" are you 

a Federal Defender 

 CJA Panel Attorney 

______________________________________________________________________ 

In order to appear before this $ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this $ourt’s 

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 &.%.$#§1746, this 

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath. 

Executed on 

Attorney signature: S/ 

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.) 

Revised 8/1/2015 

In re: TikTok Inc. Consumer 

Privacy Litigation Case Number: 1:20-04699

Plaintiff G.R., a Minor, by and through Her Guardian Mayra De La Cruz 

Carey Alexander

Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP

The Helmsley Building, 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor

New York, New York 10169

5188461 (212) 223-6444

calexander@scott-scott.com

June 15, 2023

Carey Alexander

Case: 1:20-cv-04699 Document #: 302 Filed: 06/15/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:13427
10082.

#### JONES *v.*SOUTHERN MORTGAGE COMPANY.

Decided April 16, 1919.

The extension granted by the creditor ifi taking the joint promissory note of the defendants for the antecedent debt of one of them was sufficient consideration to support the promise of the other.

*568Complaint; from Burke superior court—Judge H. C. Hammond. June *29,*1918.

*C. B. Garlick,*for plaintiff in error.

*E. V. Carter, Brinson & Hatcher,*contra.

Wade, C. J.

The Southern Mortgage Company brought suit against R. P. Jones and T. D. Jones upon a joint promissory note, and also, foreclosed a mortgage given by T. D. Jones to secure the payment of the note. R. P. Jones did not defend against the note, and default judgment was taken against him. T. D. Jones filed a defense. The two suits were, by agreement of counsel, tried as one. The defense interposed by T. D. Jones was. twofold: (1) that the. instruments were signed by him to settle or prevent a threatened criminal prosecution against R. P. Jones; and (2) that both instruments, so far as he was concerned, were without any consideration whatsoever. The case was submitted to a jury, and the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff. .Counsel for the plaintiff in error, in his brief, insists only upon that ground of the motion for a new trial which complains that the court erred in failing to charge the law applicable to the defense of failure of consideration.

The instruments sued upon being under seal, the law presumes a consideration (Civil Code of 1910, § 4241); and this presumption was not rebutted by the defendant. To the contrary, he admitted in his answer and in his evidence that there was a consideration for both the note and the mortgage, to wit, that his brother was indebted to the plaintiff in the amount sued for, and that this indebtedness was extended on' account of the note and mortgage executed by him. “An extension of time by a creditor to his principal debtor is a sufficient consideration to support the indorsement of a note’renewing, the original debt. The court committed no error in striking defendant’s pleas and in directing a verdict against him.” *Hollingshead*v. *American National Bank of Macon,*104 *Ga.*250 (2) (30 S. E. 728). See also, in this connection, *Carr*v. *Rountree, 9 Ga. App.*393 (71 S. E. 589). The defense of failure of consideration not being sustained by the proof, the court did not err in’failing to charge on this subject.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins and Luke, JJ„ concur.*
cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge John S. Bentley Lisa A. Bentley Sun Valley Mesquite Apartments, LLC Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Little Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF 2
NEVADA

(0) 1947A 01WCs.
No. 15,486.

#### Vaughan *v.*The State.

Criminal *Law.*— Assault *and Battery with Intent to Kill.*— Information.— An information charging that one A., at, etc., on, etc., “did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, wilfully, and purposely, and with premeditated malice, in a rude, insolent, and angry manner, touch one B., with intent then and there, and thereby, her, the said B., feloniously, wilfully, and purposely, and with premeditated malice, to kill and murder,” etc., contains a good charge of assault and battery, with intent to commit the crime of murder.

From the Montgomery Circuit Court.

*C. Johnston*and *W. H. Johnston,*for appellant.

*A. G. Smith,*Attorney General, for the State.

Coffey, J.

This was a prosecution by the State, in the Montgomery Circuit Court, by affidvait and information^ against the appellant upon a charge of assault and batfceiy with the intent to commit a felony. The jury returned a verdict finding the appellant guilty, as charged, whereupon a motion in arrest of judgment was interposed. The motion was overruled by the court, anda judgment was rendered on the verdict of the jury. The assignment of error calls in question *15the correctness of the ruling of the circuit court in overruling the motion of the appellant to arrest the judgment.

Filed April 8, 1891.

The motion was based upon the claim of the appellant that the information in the cause does not charge a public offence. The information, omitting the formal parts, is as follows: “ Albert B. Anderson, the prosecuting attorney for the county of Montgomery, gives the court to understand and be informed that at and in the county of Montgomery and State of Indiana, on the 10th day of December, 1889, one John J. Vaughan did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, wilfully, and purposely, and with premeditated malice, in a rude, insolent, and angry manner, touch one Mary M. Vaughan, with intent then and there, and thereby, her, the said Mary M. Vaughan, feloniously, wilfully, purposely, and with premeditated malice, to kill and murder,” etc.

The contention of the appellant is, that the information is fatally defective, in that it fails to charge that he possessed the present ability to commit the injury he is charged with intending to commit.

We do not think sucli a charge was necessary. The appellant is in error in assuming that he is charged with a mere assault with intent to commit a felony.

If such were the charge against him, then it would be necessary to allege the present ability to commit the injury, as such language is necessary to describe an assault. But the appellant is charged with an assault and battery, with the intent to commit a felony. The assault and battery is well charged, and no allegation to the effect that he possessed the present ability to commit the injury is necessary to a charge, of that kind.

This information, in our opinion, contains a good charge of assault and battery, with intent to commit the crime of murder. *Knight*v. *State,*84 Ind. 73; *Hays*v. *State,*77 Ind. *450; Keeling*v. *State,*107 Ind. 563.

Judgment affirmed.
James Stafford






James Stafford
 Chartered
Accountants
 Suite 350
- 1111 Melville Street
 Vancouver,
British Columbia
 Canada
V6E 3V6
 Telephone
+1 604 669 0711
 Facsimile
+1 604 669 0754
 *
Incorporated professional, James Stafford, Inc.






Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 We
consent to the incorporation of our report dated 17 July 2009, with respect to
the consolidated balance sheets of Rotoblock Corporation as at 30 April 2009 and
2008 and the related consolidated statements of operations, cash flows and
changes in stockholders’ equity for the years ended 30 April 2009, 2008 and
2007 on Form 10-K dated 11 August 2009.
 
 s/ James Stafford
 Vancouver,
Canada Chartered
Accountants
Exhibit D

Case: 1:20-cv-04673 Document #: 3-4 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:53
Yiwu Magicat Crafts Co.,Ltd

Commercial Invoice

Invoice Number 201901309 Date: January 30, 2019

Shipper Consignee

Yiwu Magicat Crafts Co.,Ltd

No 558 Binwang Road, Yiwu,

Zhejiang, China

+86 180-6990-2790

Daniel Bekavac

Bekavac Trading Company Inc

921 Brian Dr. Ste D

Crest Hill, IL 60403

708-677-5221

Order Detail

LCR 3 dice with 24 chips game set

Red, Yellow, Green, Blue

5,000 pcs per color

20,000 pcs in total

Quantity 20,000

Unit price $1.00

Total value $20,000.00

PAYMENT DETAIL:

Agricultural Bank of China, Zhejiang Branch

SWIFT CODE: ABOCCNBJ110

RECEIVER: CAI YUEZHU

ACCOUNT NUMBER: 19648014040107467

ADDRESS: NO. 28 Qingchun Road, Hangzhou city, Zhejiang, China

Case: 1:20-cv-04673 Document #: 3-4 Filed: 08/07/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:54
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 65756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26280]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8937]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``The Winchester Bible: A Masterpiece of Medieval Art''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority 
No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``The Winchester Bible: A Masterpiece of 
Medieval Art,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within 
the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are 
imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or 
custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, 
from on or about December 9, 2014, until on or about March 8, 2015, and 
at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is 
in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: October 24, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-26280 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2



                STOCK OPTION CANCELLATION AND AMENDMENT AGREEMENT

        This Stock Option Cancellation and Amendment Agreement (this
"Agreement") is entered into by and between ACME Communications, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), and Doug Gealy (the "Optionee") as of
this 12th day of November, 2001.

                                    RECITALS

        A. On or about September 30, 1999, the Corporation granted the Optionee
a stock option (the "Option") under the Corporation's 1999 Stock Incentive Plan
to acquire up to 685,227 shares of the Corporation's Common Stock ("Common
Stock") at a per share exercise price of $23.00. The Option is evidenced by and
subject to the terms and conditions of a written stock option agreement executed
by the Corporation and the Optionee (the "Option Agreement").

        B. The Corporation and the Optionee desire to cancel the Option to the
extent of 342,613 shares of Common Stock.

        NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants
made herein and the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom and for other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

        1. PARTIAL CANCELLATION OF THE OPTION. The Option shall be, and it
hereby is, terminated to the extent of 342,613 shares of Common Stock subject to
the vested and unexercised portion of the Option. Any rights that the Optionee
may have with respect to such portion of the Option (including, without
limitation, under or with respect to the Option Agreement) shall be, and they
hereby are, terminated and no amount is payable with respect thereto or with
respect to the termination of such portion of the Option.

        2. CONTINUING EFFECT OF OPTION. The remaining Option (covering 342,614
shares of Common Stock) shall remain in full effect, subject to the other terms
and conditions of the Option Agreement.

        3. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed and
enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware without giving
effect to conflicts of laws principles thereunder.

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

"OPTIONEE"                              ACME COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
                                        A Delaware corporation
/s/ Doug Gealy
--------------------------------
Signature                               By: /s/ Thomas Allen
                                            ------------------------------------

Doug Gealy                              Its: Executive Vice President and CFO
                                             -----------------------------------
Print Name
Continuing Education Units

VERIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE FORM

Certification Number: ________________

 attended the following professional educational activity. 

(NAME)

Title: National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Webinar: Mentorship Models to Enhance Diversity

and Increase Persistence in Cybersecurity Careers

Date(s): January 27, 2022 CEU Hours Earned: 1 hr 

Sponsor(s): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Explanation of Event: In this webinar we will explore effective practices for mentoring, highlight features of model programs, 

and showcase the Cybersecurity Mentoring Hub as a community of mentors and mentees in cybersecurity. Webinar 

attendees will hear presentations from: 

• Delia Hagan, Director of Program and Training Delivery, MENTOR 

• Gus Hinojosa Jr., Executive Director, National Cybersecurity Student Association

• Orlando Leon, Owner, Akmazo LLC

• Valerie Vogel, Community Builder and Program Manager, Vantage Technology Consulting Group

Location: Virtual Webinar; www.nist.gov/nice/webinars

Name of Meeting Host: Rodney Petersen, Director of the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE)

 

Contact Information:

nist.gov/nice 

nice@nist.gov

The Continuing Education Units form is provided as a courtesy. It is the responsibility of the 

attendee to complete and submit with their certifying authority.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Todd WILLIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-10674.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Dec. 28, 2004.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Christopher Allen Curtis, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Todd Willis was convicted of mail fraud and aiding and abetting in viola*363tion of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2*&*1341. He appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. Willis argues that the district court erred by sentencing him above the statutory maximum sentence for revocation. In particular, he contends that once the district court imposed a two-year term of imprisonment, it was not authorized to impose an additional one-year term of supervised release because this violated 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) (2002). The Government concedes error.

We review the alleged imposition of a sentence above the statutory maximum de novo. *See United States v. Sias,*227 F.3d 244, 246 (5th Cir.2000). The penalties imposed on revocation of supervised release relate back to the original offense. *See Johnson v. United States,*529 U.S. 694, 701-02, 120 S.Ct. 1795, 146 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000). Accordingly, the statutes in effect at the time of Willis’s offense conduct, which occurred in 1995, apply. *See United States v. Smith,*869 F.2d 835, 836-37 (5th Cir.1989). Because Willis’s offense was a class D felony, *see*18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 3559(a)(4) (1995), the maximum term of imprisonment that he could receive upon revocation of supervised release was two years. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (1995). In light of the district court’s decision to sentence Willis to the maximum term of imprisonment, the court erred by also imposing a one-year term of supervised release. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3583(h); *United States v. Ferguson,*369 F.3d 847, 850-52 (2004).

In sentencing Willis, the district court clearly stated its intention to impose the maximum term of imprisonment in order to allow Willis to obtain treatment for the drug problems that led to the revocation of his supervised release. *See United States v. Mills,*9 F.3d 1132, 1139 (5th Cir.1993). Therefore, we MODIFY the district court’s judgment by VACATING the one-year term of supervised release, and we AFFIRM the judgment AS MODIFIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *363the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report of Profire Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brenton W. Hatch , 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, as amended.











Date:
March 17, 2011

By:
/s/ Brenton W. HatchBrenton W. HatchChief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)