alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10087.

#### Youngblood *v.*Armour Fertilizer Works.

Broyles, P. J.

1. “In an action to recover specific chattels, no counterclaim is possible, unless, perhaps, equitable relief may be awarded under some very exceptional circumstances.” Pomeroy, Code Remedies, § 767; *Harden*v. *Long,*110 *Ga.*392, 399 (36 S. E. 100).

2. In an action of trover, recoupment in the nature of damages can not be pleaded by the defendant, nor adjudicated, unless some special equity, such as non-residence or the insolvency of the plaintiff, is shown. *Bell*v. *Ober,*111 *Ga.*668 (3), 673 (36. S. E. 904).

3. A foreign corporation doing business in this State and having agents located therein for -.that purpose is a non-resident corporation within the * meaning of the decision in *Bell*v. *Ober,*supra.*Reeves*v. *Southern Ry. Co.,*121 *Ga.*561 (49 S. E. 674, 70 L. R. A. 513, 2 Ann. Cas. 207).

■4. Under the principles of law stated above and the facts of this case, the cross action of the defendant could not be maintained. .It was therefore not error for the court in granting the.motion of the plaintiff to dismiss its action in trover, to rule that this dismissal carried with it the defendant’s cross action for* damages. .

*732Decided May 14, 1919.

Rehearing Denied May 16, 1919.

Trover; from Taylor superior court; Judge Howard. March 29, 1918.

*Jere M. Moore, C. B. Marshall,*for plaintiff: in error.

*C. W. Foy,*contra.

5. The only assignment of error in the bill of exceptions is as follows: “After the submission of the foregoing evidence the court passed the following order: ‘Upon motion of counsel for the'plaintiff it is ordered and adjudged by the court that the petition in this case be, and the same is hereby, dismissed, carrying with said dismissal the cross-bill filed by the defendant.’ To the judgment of the court dismissing said petition and the answer of the defendant therein the plaintiff in error excepted, and now excepts and assigns the same as error, upon the ground that the same was contrary to the law.” This exception does not raise the point (argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error) that the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action operated as a judgment of restitution and that the defendant was entitled to “either a verdict by the jury restoring his property to him, or a judgment by the court for the value thereof.” Moreover, this principle of law is not applicable in the instant ease, as the property was never replevied by the plaintiff. Compare *Barfield Music House*v. *Harris,*20 *Ga. App.*42, 44, 45 (92 S. E. 402).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth. and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

February 15, 2008

Mr. David M. Pruessner

The Law Offices of David M. Pruessner

Three Galleria Tower

13155 Noel Road, Suite 1025

Dallas, TX 75240

Mr. Charles F. Fulbruge III, Clerk

U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

600 S. Maestri Place

New Orleans, TX 70130

Mr. Charles C. Self III

Whitten & Young, P.C.

P.O. Box 208

Abilene, TX 79604

Mr. Michael R. Cooper

P.O. Box 1276

Salado, TX 76571

RE:Case Number:  04-0728

Court of Appeals Number:  

Trial Court Number:  

Style:FAIRFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY

v.

STEPHENS MARTIN PAVING, LP; CARRIE BENNETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROY EDWARD BENNETT, DECEASED, AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF LANE EDWARD BENNETT, CODY LEE BENNETT, AND APRIL ANNE BENNETT, MINORS

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinions in the above-referenced cause.  The Motion for Re-argument is denied.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 04-0728Page 2**
EXHIBIT 99.1

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN AND PRESIDENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the quarterly report of NB Capital Corporation (the Company),
for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on Form 10-Q on the date hereof (the Report), I, Serge Lacroix, Chairman and
President of the Company, certify 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/ Serge Lacroix
Serge Lacroix
Chairman and President
| | ------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 15, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's unaudited financial statements for the nine months ended September 30,
1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                     $ 3,830,794
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,592,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      4,586,896
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,683
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,782,742
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,592,622
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               372,868
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,098,502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             930,188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,318,422)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,791,898)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.18)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6353

RICHARD A. SCHMIDT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM SMITH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE

OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Edward S. Northrop, Senior District Judge.

(CA-94-536-N)

Submitted: September 12, 1995 Decided: January 16, 1996

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard A. Schmidt, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,

Attorney General, Kathryn Grill Graeff, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of

the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Schmidt v. Smith,

No. CA-94-536-N (D. Md. Feb. 15, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 4.33
 Third Amended and Restated Exclusive Purchase Right Agreement
 Registered Address:
 ID No.:  Address:
 Registered Address: nd ,  Legal Representative:
 Registered Address:  Legal Representative:
 WHEREAS:
      Chapter One. Purchases and Sale of Equity Interest
 Authorizations




---



##### 



Steps
  Purchase Price
  Transfer of the Purchased Equity Interest
     Payment
  Chapter Two. Promises Relating Equity Interest
 Promises Relating Party C




---



##### 



Promises Relating Party B
 Party B promises:




---



##### 



Promises Relating Party D
  Representations and Warranties
 Representations and Warranties of Party B and Party C
 Party B and Party C




---



##### 



Effective Date
  Applicable Law and Dispute Resolution
 Applicable Law
  Dispute Resolution
       Taxes and Expenses




---



##### 



Notices
  Party A:  Address:  Fax:  Tel:  Addressee:
 Party B:  Address:  Fax:
Tel:
 Party C:  Registered Address: nd ,  Fax:  Tel:  Addressee:
 Party D:  Address:  Fax:  Tel:  Addressee:
 Confidentiality
  Further Warranties




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 Amendment, Modification and Supplement
  Observance of Laws and Regulations
  Entire Contract
  Headings
  Language
  Severability
  Successor
  Survival
   Waiver




---



##### 



Party
A:
 Signature of Authorized Representative:
    
    /s/ Chris Chan
 Party
B:
 Signature:
    
    /s/ Guangfu Cui
 Party
C:
 Signature of Authorized Representative:
    
    /s/ Justin Tang
 Official Seal:
 Party
D:
 Signature of Authorized Representative:
    
    /s/ Justin Tang
 Official Seal:
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

# **ITEM 1.****                                                    ****Subsidiaries of the Company**

 

 
| **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 Mark Corp.                             |       | Delaware                    |
|                                            |       |                        |
| Real Mex Foods, Inc.                       |       | California                  |
|                                            |       |                        |
| CKR Acquisition Corp.                           |       | Delaware                    |
|                                            |       |                        |
| Chevys Restaurants, LLC                         |       | Delaware                    |

 

----
Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 22:18:37 Eastern Daylight Time 

Subject: Re: Four Principles of Explainable Ar6ficial Intelligence 

Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 at 8:16:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time 

From: Shawn Riley 

To: NIST Explainable AI 

BTW if the authors are not familiar with modern symbolic AI that uses Descrip6on Logics ontologies 

and that produces fully explainable results, there is a great explainer ar6cle on Medium. 

Shawn Riley 

Chief Visionary Officer & 

Technical Advisor to the CEO 

DarkLight, Inc. 

Mobile: 

Email: 

www.darklight.ai 

hQps://medium.com/@shawn.p.riley/modern-symbolic-ai-in-2020-dfcc27abbc5c 

From: Shawn Riley 

Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 6:00 AM 

To: explainable-AI@nist.gov <explainable-AI@nist.gov> 

Subject: Four Principles of Explainable Ar6ficial Intelligence 

NIST Explainable AII was reading the new Four Principles of Explainable Ar6ficial Intelligence NISTIR8312 and it appears to 

be aimed exclusively at non-symbolic AI (machine learning / deep learning) and did not seem to 

guidance on the fully explainable symbolic AI (machine undertanding) used today. If the inten6on is for 

this work only to apply to machine learning / deep learning systems then perhaps it would be 

beneficial to call it Explainable Machine Learning? I'm just concerned there might be some confusion 

since we have 2 very different and very ac6ve fields of ar6ficial intelligence in the community. 

Symbolic AI has advanced from the ProLog days of Proposi6onal Logic, Implica6ons, and Truth Tables 

to using more expressive, standardized Descrip6on Logics Ontologies and Descrip6on Logics Inference 

Engines that are used to create fully transparent and explainable ar6ficial intelligence solu6ons that 

give the AI and human users a shared understanding of the integrated data, informa6on, and 

knowledge. Shouldn't there be one NIST standard for explainable AI or shouldn't the explainable AI 

standard describe both types of ar6ficial intelligence and how both non-symbolic AI and symbolic AI 

can be explainable AI and how their different? 

The point is that symbolic AI today is fully explainable ar6ficial intelligence and the en6re NISTIR8312 

only talks about non-symbolic AI as explainable ar6ficial intelligence. Either change the name of the 

work to be explicit to non-symbolic AI or be inclusive of both fields. 

We already have people out there working on Co-symbolic AI / NeuroSymbolic AI where people are 

combining the Descrip6on Logics Ontologies and Reasoners of symbolic AI for deduc6ve logical 

inference and machine understanding with the algorithms of non-symbolic AI with their induc6ve 

sta6s6cal inference and machine learning ability. Shouldn't the Ar6ficial Intelligence standards and 

guidance cover both non-symbolic AI and symbolic AI given that both have transformed over the last 

Page 1 of 2 
 

20 years? 

Shawn 

Shawn Riley 

Chief Visionary Officer & 

Technical Advisor to the CEO 

DarkLight, Inc. 

Mobile: 

Email: 

www.darklight.ai 

Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE> 

<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 22838202                25469242
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                  0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                22838202                25469242
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                     1347666                  288460
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                    21490536                25220782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  22838202                25469242
<TRADING-REVENUE>                             (805664)                 1458197
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            204729                  407370
<COMMISSIONS>                                   361536                  823462
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                  2434695                 1036043
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1472224                 2078148
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1472224                 2078148
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1472224                 2078148
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    14.47                   17.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    14.47                   17.54
        

</TABLE>
9999.

#### Cook *v.*Ryals.

Decided April 23, 1919.

Complaint; from Talbot superior court—Judge Howard. June 20, 1918.

*A. P. Persons,*for plaintiff in error. *Love & Fort,*contra.

Wade, C. J.

Under the issues actually involved in this case, the excerpts from the charge of the court which are complained of contain no error requiring a reversal; and there being evidence to support the verdict, the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial, must be

*Affirmed.*

*Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                       ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2004-10CB
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-10CB


     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                       Dated: March 29, 2005
------------------------

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Mark Wong                                  Dated: March 29, 2005
-------------

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
May 2004 

Net Content Inspections - What and Where to Test 

By Tom Coleman 

NIST WMD frequently receives inquiries as to whether or not a commodity needs to be 

tested. To address that concern, any commodity sold by weight, measure, count or 

combinations of these declarations may be tested. An effective program will typically 

include testing at each of the following levels: point-of-pack, wholesale, and retail. The 

decision to test and where to test may be based on different factors, such as marketplace 

surveys, sales volume, complaints, routine inspections, or follow-up inspections. 

While Federal law preempts State enforcement if the testing procedures are not identical 

to, are different from, or are in addition to Federal requirements, State regulatory 

agencies have the authority to inspect product at any location in the distribution chain. 

For example, FDA has the authority to conduct inspections at “any factory, warehouse, or 

establishment in which food, drugs, devices, or cosmetics are manufactured, processed, 

packed, or held for introduction into interstate commerce or after such introduction” (21 

U.S.C. 341 (a)(1)). While it is true that FDA generally conducts inspections of packaged 

items at the point-of-pack, this is primarily because it is the most efficient allocation of 

their resources; however, if they choose, they can inspect/test product at any location that 

the product is exposed or offered for sale. According to FDA, if States or local 

jurisdictions choose to inspect/test at point-of-pack, wholesale, or retail, they must not 

apply any procedure or requirement that conflicts with Federal requirements. 

The net quantity of content statement must be accurate, but reasonable variations are 

permitted. The limits for acceptable variation are based on current good manufacturing 

practices in weighing, measuring, and packing. Accuracy is applied to the average net 

contents of the packages in the lot. Inspection lot (referred to as "lot" in NIST Handbook 

133) is defined as a collection of identically labeled (except for quantity or identity in the 

case of random packages) packages available for inspection at one time at point-of-pack, 

wholesale, and retail. The collection of packages will pass or fail as a whole based on the 

results of tests on a sample drawn from this collection. We encourage States to follow 

the model guidelines for administrative review located in NIST Handbook 130, 

Interpretations and Guidelines, Section 2.6.10. to enable compliance with FDA 

requirements. 

If you have any questions, please contact Tom Coleman at 301-975-4868 or by email at 

tom.coleman@nist.gov.