alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10229.

#### Plair *v.*The State.

Decided April 16, 1919.

Indictment for misdemeanor; from Colquitt superior court— Judge Thomas. November 13, 1918.

*Parker & Gibson,*for plaintiff in error.

*C. E. Hay, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. The evidence in this case was sufficient to establish that the offense charged was committed on May 28, 1918, and from the record it is clear that both the State and the defendant so understood and accepted it, though the evidence on the trial, which took place in July, 1918, was that the offense was committed on “May 28th,” without stating in what year. *Tipton*v. *State,*119 *Ga.*304 (2), (46 S. E. 436); *Goldberg*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*122 (95 S. E. 541). This being true, and the evidence showing that the offense was committed solely on that date, the charge of the judge that the jury might return a verdict of guilty on the indictment (which was brought under the prohibition act of March, 1917), if they believed the accused to be guilty of the offense charged any time within two years previous to thp finding of the indictment (in July, 1918), was harmless. See *Tatum*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*638 (7) (96 S. E. 1046; *Adams*v. *State,*22 *Ga. App.*252 (95 S. E. 877). In this connection see also *Ford*v. *State,*21 *Ga. App.*499 (94 S. E. 627).

2. There was ample evidence to support the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
**EXHIBIT
        10.18**
  **AMENDMENT
        TO EXECUTIVE**
 **EMPLOYMENT
        AGREEMENT**
 
 
 This
        Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement is made as of May 28, 2007 between
        True North Energy Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and John Folnovic
        (the “Executive”).
 
 **WITNESSETH:**
 
 WHEREAS,
        the Company and the Executive entered into an Executive Employment Agreement
        (the “Employment Agreement”) effective as of June 1, 2006 pursuant to which the
        Executive is serving as the Company’s president and chief executive officer;
        and
 
 WHEREAS,
        the Company and the Executive wish to extend the term of the Employment
        Agreement for an additional 12 month period in accordance with the terms
        of the
        Employment Agreement; and
 
 WHEREAS,
        in recognition of a Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of May 28, 2007 between
        the Executive and Massimiliano Pozzoni, the Company’s principal shareholder,
        pursuant to which Massimiliano Pozzoni has sold 15,500,000 shares of the
        Company’s common stock to the Executive, the Executive and the Company have
        agreed to amend the Employment Agreement to delete Section 3(b) thereof and
        the
        Executive has agreed to waive all other rights granted to him under the
        Employment Agreement to receive compensation in the form of restricted shares
        of
        the Company’s common stock.
 
 NOW,
        THEREFORE,  in
        consideration of the premises, the agreements herein contained and other
        good
        and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
        parties
        hereto agree as of the date hereof as follows:
 
 1.  Term .
        Effective June 1, 2007 the Effective Date of the Employment Agreement is
        hereby
        changed to June 1, 2007 and Executive is to serve under the Employment Agreement
        for a term of one year, subject to further renewal.
 
 2.  Compensation .
        Section
        3(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted from the Employment Agreement
        and the parties agree that the Company has no obligation, now or hereafter,
        to
        issue any restricted shares of the Company’s common stock to the Executive by
        reason of the Employment Agreement.
 
 3.  No
        Further Changes .
        Except
        as provided herein, the Employment Agreement is to continue with full force
        and
        effect.
  
 
 IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment to Executive
        Employment Agreement as of the date first above written.
  TRUE
                    NORTH ENERGY CORPORATIONBy:/s/
                  Massimiliano Pozzoni
                Name:Massimiliano
                  Pozzoni
                Title:SecretaryEXECUTIVE/s/
                  John Folnovic
                John
                  Folnovic
10125.

#### Neville *v.*The State.

Decided January 9, 1919.

Indictment for'violation of prohibition law; from Wilkes superior court—Judge Walker. September 17, 1918.

*Colley & Colley,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. C. Norman, solicitor-general,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

1. A constitutional question is not raised in a special ground of a motion for a new trial which excepts to an excerpt from the charge of the court upon the ground that “the act and law” upon -which it was based is violative of a designated! provision of the constitution of the United States and of this State, *but which fails to show specifically what particular act and law is meant.*Under this ruling, no constitutional question was raised by the plaintiff in error, and this court has jurisdiction of the casé.

2. The following excerpt from the charge of the court is excepted to: “Unless the defendant shows to you by the proof of the ease that' such ‘apparatus’ was on his premises without his knowledge.” This excerpt comprises not even a single completed sentence, but only a part thereof, and is too fragmentary, incomplete, and indefinite to be considered. _ ■

3. The 'remaining ground of the motion for a new trial, being expressly disapproved by 'the trial judge, can not be considered by this court.

4. The evidence amply authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur.*
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4021

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require that only countries 

that have a democratic form of government and that support United 

States nonproliferation objectives may be designated as major non-NATO 

allies for purposes of that Act and the Arms Export Control Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 24, 2004

Mr. ACKERMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on International Relations 

A BILL

To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require 

that only countries that have a democratic form of government and that support United States nonproliferation 

objectives may be designated as major non-NATO allies 

for purposes of that Act and the Arms Export Control 

Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF MAJOR NON-NATO ALLIES. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—Section 517 of the Foreign As5 sistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321k) is amended by 
2

•HR 4021 IH 

1 striking subsection (a) and inserting the following new 

2 subsection: 

3 ‘‘(a) DESIGNATION.—

4 ‘‘(1) REQUIREMENTS.—The President may des5 ignate a country as a major non-NATO ally for pur6 poses of this Act and the Arms Export Control Act 

7 (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) only if—

8 ‘‘(A) the country has a democratic form of 

9 government; 

10 ‘‘(B) the country participates in the inter11 national agreements or arrangements described 

12 in paragraph (2), or pursuant to an inter13 national understanding to which the United 

14 States is a party, controls exports of goods and 

15 technology in accordance with the standards 

16 and criteria set forth in each or those agree17 ments and understandings; and 

18 ‘‘(C) at least 30 days before designating 

19 the country pursuant to this paragraph, the 

20 President notifies Congress in writing that the 

21 country meets the requirements of subpara22 graphs (A) and (B). 

23 ‘‘(2) INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS OR AR24 RANGEMENTS.—The international agreements or ar25 rangements referred to in paragraph (1)(B) are the 
3

•HR 4021 IH 

1 Waasenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for 

2 Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Tech3 nologies, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the 

4 Australia Group, the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, the 

5 Zangger Committee, and any other international 

6 agreement or arrangement to which the United 

7 States is a party that restricts the export of chem8 ical, biological, nuclear, and other weapons and their 

9 delivery systems, and effectively restricts the export 

10 of dual use components of such weapons and their 

11 delivery systems.’’. 

12 (b) TERMINATION.—Section 517 of the Foreign As13 sistance Act of 1961, as amended by subsection (a), is 

14 further amended by adding at the end the following new 

15 subsection: 

16 ‘‘(c) TERMINATION.—The President shall notify Con17 gress in writing at least 30 days before terminating the 

18 designation of a country pursuant to subsection (a).’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 549 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 24, 1998.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military activities of the Department of 
Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 1999, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against 
its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit 13.(a).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 Syneron Medical Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify that to our knowledge:





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





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





Date:  March 25, 2010




/s/ Louis ScafuriName:  Louis ScafuriTitle: Chief Executive Officer
  Date: March 25, 2010





/s/ Fabian TenenbaumName:  Fabian TenenbaumTitle: Chief Financial Officer
#### Isaac Rodley’s Adm’r *v.*Jack Morris and Others.

Records — Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Entry.

A motion to enter an order nunc pro tune should he overruled where the existence of the order depends upon parol proof in connection with unsigned pencil memoranda, where seven years have elapsed since the alleged failure of the clerk to enter the order of record.

Records — Alteration.

A public record should not he altered or its veracity questioned unless the power as well as the right to alter or amend is clearly shown.

APPEAL PROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 24, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The appellant, by a motion in the Hardin county court, made on the 16th of October, 1871, asks that court to enter nunc pro tunc an order alleged to have been made by that court on the 1st of April, 1865, and admitted to have been entered by the clerk of record. This order was the appointment of Grohagen, Waycraft, and Cunningham, commissioners to act under the will of John Morris for the purpose of dividing his estate. The evidence of the county judge and clerk conduces to show that the three persons named above were appointed the commissioners and in order to fortify their statements a book purporting to be a minute book kept *152by the clerk of that court is produced showing the qualification of the executor of Morris and the appointment of commissioners un-; der the'will. What act or duty these commissioners were required to discharge does not appear, and even if it did there is no law requiring the clerk to keep a memorandum book, nor is such a book a part of the records of the county court. This book or its contents’ is wholly written in pencil, with many erasures and interlineations, and evidences the holding of the court in April before it was held in March of the same year — it has neither the signature of the clerk or the judge appended to the proceedings. Records may be amended, if there is anything to amend from, but if records are to be changed, or made, by parol proof, connected with such memoran-da as this book exhibits, it would in effect be dispensing with the necessity of record evidence, and substituting the recollection of the judge or clerk,-as to the adjudications of the rights- of parties. The interests of individuals, as well as the whole public requires that public records should never be altered, or their veracity questioned unless the power as well as the right to alter or amend is clearly shown. This power can not be exercised upon parol proof in a case like this. Seven years have elapsed since- this alleged failure on the part of the clerk to enter the order occurred, and we think the county judge acted wisely in overruling appellant’s motion to enter it. The judgment is *affirmed.*

*Wintersmith, for appellant.*

*Brawn & Murray, for appellees.*
#### Kenneth B. MASON, Jr., Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 04-7026.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2004.

ON MOTION

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51356

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE LEMUS-MORALES

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:07-CR-373-ALL

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Lemus-Morales

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v. PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 2, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-51356

2

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION

Emoji Company GmbH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHEDULE “A”

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 20-cv-4874 

Notice of withdrawal of Response

 Agent jesun hereby withdraw the response filed on October 8 against the plaintiff's 

complaint and no longer represent the defendant for anything.

DATED: October 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

Jesun

Guangdong Yilong Law Firm

Room 1403, Wanhui Building, Longgang Street, 

Longgang District,Shenzhen,Guangdong,China

+86-131-2045-1811

iplawyer01@foxmail.com

FILED

10/21/2020

THOMAS G. BRUTON CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

TL

Case: 1:20-cv-04874 Document #: 39 Filed: 10/21/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:2794
SCHEDULE “A”

Seller Name Seller Origin Company 

or individual

Address

SAQIMA A159YMHZNAXJLK

Shen Zhen 

shi hui yang 

Jian she gong 

cheng you 

xian gong si

Long gang 

qu long 

cheng jie 

dao shang 

Jing she qu 

Long Cheng 

zhong lu

108 hao 

zheng zhong 

shi dai da 

Sha 807-8

Shen zhen 

shi Guang 

Dong

Case: 1:20-cv-04874 Document #: 39 Filed: 10/21/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:2795
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

MISH INTERNATIONAL MONETARY INC., 

on behalf of itself and 

all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON, LTD., and JOHN 

DOES 1-100, 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-04577 

Hon. Gary S. Feinerman 

Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert 

DEFENDANT VEGA CAPITAL LONDON LIMITED'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Vega 

Capital London Limited (“Vega”) hereby moves to dismiss Plaintiff Mish International 

Monetary, Inc.'s Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim. In support of this motion, 

Vega states as follows: 

1. On August 4, 2020, Plaintiff Mish International Monetary Inc. ("Mish") filed a 

five count Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 

U.S.C. § 1, et seq.) and the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.), relating to the trading of WTI 

crude oil futures on April 20, 2020, a day when the crude oil futures price traded at a negative 

price. 

2. Vega is moving to dismiss Mish's Class Action Complaint for failure to state a 

claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Mish's complaint should be dismissed for two reasons. First, 

Mish's market manipulation claims fail to comply with Rule 9(b)'s requirement that fraud claims 

be pled with particularity. Second, all of Mish's claims fail Rule 8(a)'s requirements that it allege 

specific facts that plausibly give rise to relief. 
2 

3. Vega has enclosed a Memorandum of Law setting forth the reasons why its 

motion should be granted. 

WHEREFORE Vega respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Mish's Class Action 

Complaint for failure to state a claim. 

Dated: November 27, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

VEGA CAPITAL LONDON LIMITED 

By: /s/ Michael Kelly 

Michael P. Kelly 

AKERMAN LLP 

750 Ninth Street, N.W., Suite 750 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 393-6222 

michael.kelly@akerman.com

Amy Graham Doehring 

AKERMAN LLP 

71 S. Wacker Drive, 47th Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

(312) 634-5700 

amy.doehring@akerman.com

Joel S. Forman 

Meghan K. Boland 

AKERMAN LLP 

520 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor 

New York, NY 10022 

(212) 880-3800 

joel.forman@akerman.com

meghan.boland@akerman.com

Attorneys for Vega Capital London Limited 
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that, on November 27, 2020, a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint, including the accompanying declaration and memorandum of 

law, was filed using the CM/ECF electronic filing system. Service of this filing will be made on 

attorneys of record in the case by operation of the Court's electronic filing system, and parties 

may access these filings through the Court's electronic filing system. 

/s/ Michael P. Kelly

Michael P. Kelly
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 19 - 00044 - CV NOAH LEE DUNLAP , APPELLANT

V. SONDRA JEAN DUNLAP , APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court at Law Moore County , Texas Trial Court No. CL71 - 15 , Honorable Delwin T. McGee , Presiding



### April 18 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN , C.J. , and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE , JJ. Appellant , Noah Lee Dunlap , appeal s from the trial court ’ s order enforcing and modifying child support obligations . Appellant ’ s brief was due on March 22 , 2019 , but was not filed. By letter dated March 29 , 2019 , this court notified appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution if his brief was not received by April 8. To date , neither a brief nor a motion for extension of time to file same has been received by the court.2

Accordingly , we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.8(a)(1) , 42.3 (b). Per Curiam
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Roe H. Hatlen, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Buffets Holdings, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     /s/ Roe H. Hatlen     Roe H. Hatlen  Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)  Date: September 23, 2005
Exhibit 32.1



                                  CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, the undersigned  officer of Golden American
Life Insurance  Company (the "Company")  hereby certifies that, to the officer's
knowledge,  the Company's  Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended
June 30, 2003 (the  "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that
the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




November 10, 2003          By  /s/ David A. Wheat
-----------------              -------------------------------------------------
      (Date)                   David A. Wheat
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer