alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. S. Lee’s Administrator *v.*N. T. Hood, etc.

Execution — Notice of Purchaser — Negligence.

Where the purchaser of land, before execution ©ale, ¡had actual notice when he purchased that L. ¡had some claim upon the land, and the proof shows that L.’s deed to the land was of record, and that the land was in the actual possession of one claiming under L., it was gross negligence in the purchaser to buy without investigating the title.

APPEAL PROM BUTLER CIRCUIT COURT.

December 3, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

It seems to this court that the case of *McGhee v. Ellis & Browning,*4 Littell 245, is conclusive as to the law^ of this case.

It is neither alleged nor proved that the sheriff levied on or sold the land purchased by Hood at the instance or suggestion of appellant. The execution creditor pursued his legal remedies, without in any way controlling the acts of the sheriff.

Appellee was a voluntary bidder at the sheriff’s sale with notice that Lee had some kind of claim upon a portion of the tract of land, *188and the proof shows that his deed was of record and the land in the actual possession of a person claiming under him at the time of the sale.

*H. T. Clark, for appellant.*

*Scott, for appellees.*

Under the circumstances it was gross negligence upon the part of appellee to fail to investigate the title offered for sale by the sheriff. The effect of the execution of the sale bond was to> satisfy appellant’s common-law judgment to the amount of the bid. Appellant holds the bond in lieu of his judgment and not as the purchase price of the land that he neither owned nor sold.

If appellee does not get the land he purchased, hi® remedy is against the execution debtor, whose debt he has paid, or bound himself to pay. It is not sufficiently charged that the sheriff failed to have the land appraised, but if it was, the debtor is not complaining of such failure. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions to dismiss appellee’s petition, and to dissolve their injunction.
```

                                                                     Exhibit 3.2

                                  AMENDMENT TO

                                    RESTATED

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                              UNITED CAPITAL CORP.

                          It is hereby certified that:

     1.  (a)  The  present  name  of the  corporation  (hereinafter  called  the
"Corporation") is UNITED CAPITAL CORP.

         (b)  The name under which the Corporation  was originally  incorporated
is  METROPOLITAN  CONSOLIDATED  INDUSTRIES,  INC.,  and the date of  filing  the
original  Certificate of  Incorporation of the Corporation with the Secretary of
State of the State of Delaware is October 31, 1980.

     2. The  Certificate  of  Incorporation  was  restated on June 8, 1993.  The
Restated  Certificate of  Incorporation  of the Corporation is hereby amended by
striking out Article  FOURTH:  A thereof and by substituting in lieu thereof new
Article FOURTH: A which shall provide as follows:

          "The total number of shares which the Corporation  shall be
           authorized to issue is 17,500,000,  all of which shall  be
           Common Stock of the par value of $.10 per share."

     3. This  Amendment to the Restated  Certificate of  Incorporation  shall be
effective upon filing.

     4. All other provisions of the Restated  Certificate of Incorporation shall
remain in full force and effect.

     5. The  Amendment  to the  Restated  Certificate  of  Incorporation  of the
Corporation  effected by this  Certificate  was duly  authorized by the Board of
Directors of the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of Section 242 of
the General  Corporation  Law of the State of Delaware,  and by the  affirmative
vote by the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares of the Corporation's
outstanding  capital  stock  entitled  to vote  thereon  by  written  consent in
accordance with the provisions of Section 228 of the General  Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this Certificate this 4th
day of August, 2003.

                                            UNITED CAPITAL CORP.

                                            By: /s/ Anthony J. Miceli
                                                --------------------------------
                                                    Anthony J. Miceli
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 60012 Summary Calendar

SHUN CHEN , Petitioner ,

v ersus JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent

.

Petition for Review of an Order of t he Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A089 878 466

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Shun Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China ,

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 24, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-60012 Document: 00513964380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2017N o. 16

- 60012

2 petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals ( “ BIA ” ) dismissing his appeal of a decision of an i mmigration judge ( “ IJ ” ) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( “ CAT ” ) , and ordering his removal

. Chen maintains that his asylum application was timely filed and that the adverse credibil ity determina

tion is not supported by substantial evidence.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Chen’s asy

lum application was untimely, because that determination was based solely on findings of fact, and Chen raises no constitut ional or legal challenge to tha t determination

. See Zhu v. Gonzales , 493 F.3 d 588, 594

– 95 (5th Cir. 2007). We do, h owever, retain jurisdiction to review Chen’s challenge to the denial of
with holding of removal and relief under the CAT based on the adverse credi

bility finding

. An IJ’s credibility de cis ion is entitled to deference “ unless, from the total

ity of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact

- finder could make
such an adverse credibility ruling.” Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 538 (5th Cir. 2009). E ven if there could be reasonable explanations for some of the discrepancies noted by the IJ , it is not plain, in light of the record as a whole, that no reasonable factfinder could make an adverse credibility ruling. See id

. As the BIA concluded , the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was based on
numerous inconsistencies and Chen’s demeanor and was supported “by specific and cogent reasons.” See id. at 537 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, the peti tion for review of the denial of asylum is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction . T he petition for review of the denial of withholding of removal and protection under the CAT is DENIED. Case: 16-60012 Document: 00513964380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2017
exv10w3



 





Exhibit 10.3




Restricted Stock Award



Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Company’s 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), you
have been granted a Restricted Stock Award for ___shares of stock as outlined below:




	 	 	 
	Granted To:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Grant Date:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Granted:

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Grant Price:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Vesting Schedule:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Performance Criteria:
	 	 





By my signature below, I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Grant on the date shown above, which
has been issued to me under the terms and conditions of the Plan. I further acknowledge receipt of
the copy of the Plan and agree to conform to all of the terms and conditions of the Grant and the
Plan.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Signature:

	 	 	 	Date
NO. 12-24-00019-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

EZELL THOMPSON, SR., 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Ezell Thompson, Sr. filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is 

signed by Appellant and his counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal.

Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.2(a).

Opinion delivered August 7, 2024.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 7, 2024

NO. 12-24-00019-CR

EZELL THOMPSON, SR.,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-2493-23)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This amended schedule contains summary financial information from the six months
ended February 28, 1997, financial statements and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to the 10-Q filing for the six months ended February 28, 1997. EPS
amounts are in accordance with SFAS 128.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                       8,800,909
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               18,891,352
<ALLOWANCES>                                 3,606,862
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,253,708
<PP&E>                                       3,603,774
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,989,999
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,164,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,372,137
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,906
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,013,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,164,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            53,243,571
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               44,442,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,442,693
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             221,329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,439,070
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,999,913
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,387,597
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,387,597
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 71441]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28323]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Member Conflict: III, IHD and VMD.
    Date: December 4, 2014.
    Time: 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Betty Hayden, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 4206, MSC 7812, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-
1223, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c0a8a1b9a4a5aea280a3b3b2eeaea9a8eea7afb6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7119100815141f13311202035f1f18195f161e07">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 25, 2014.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-28323 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NO. SCPW-12-0000399

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

CEDRIC AH SING, Petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE STEVEN S. ALM, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P.P. NO. 11-1-0035)

ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ. and Circuit Judge Wilson, in place of Duffy, J., recused)
Upon consideration of petitioner Cedric Ah Sing's petition for a writ of mandamus, the respondent judge's answer, and the record of S.P.P. No. 11-1-0035, it appears that the petition for post-conviction relief and motion for appointment of counsel filed in S.P.P. No. 11-1-0035 was disposed of on May 10, 2012. Petitioner's request for mandamus relief is moot. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 6, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000399 06-JUN-2012 02:03 PM
#### Harnwell *v.*Hollenberg Music Company.

Opinion delivered October 1, 1928.

*99
      *C. P. Harnwell,*for appellant.

*Frank B. Pittard, Kenneth, W. Coulter*and *John H. Quidor,*for appellee.

Kirby, J.,

(after stating the facts). This court on a motion for rehearing has concluded it should be sustained, and appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in refusing to quash the summons and to dismiss the cause as against her for want of jurisdiction upheld. The motion to make her a party was made upon the disclosure by the answer of C. P. Harnwell and Mary Bryan that the property belonged to her, and she was duly served with a summons, and no- error was committed in not granting the motion on that account; but the value of the property replevied was shown by the undisputed testimony to be in excess of $300, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the municipal court. The circuit court acquired no jurisdiction on appeal, and the motion to dismiss -should have been sustained. Act 463, Acts of 1921, § 2; *Ware*v. *Shoemaker-Bale Auto Co.,*177 Ark. 227, 6 S. W. (2d) 285.

Harnwell testified the value of the piano was something between $800 and $1,000 'and Hollenberg “thought his company should sell it for $400, possibly $450.’'’ Said “he would be willing to sell it for $350 rather than to refuse an -offer' — that if it wasn’t worth more than $200 he would be willing to take it as a cancellation of the debt. ’ ’ His statement that he would be willing to take it in -satis*100faction of the debt to his company was without probative force as' against his statement, and the other testimony about the value of the piano is not in conflict therewith or contradictory thereof, since he had no’ interest in it beyond the amount of his debt, a sum less than $300, secured by the mortgage thereon. There is no substantial evidence to support the court’s finding that the value of the property replevied was under $300 and within the court’s jurisdiction, and the court erred in so holding.

Having reached this conclusion, the other questions need not be discussed, and the motion 'for rehearing will be granted, the judgment reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. It is so ordered.

Hart, C. J., and McHaney, J., dissent.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-15838

________________________

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-24350-KMM

RICARDO AGUILA,

and other similarly situated individuals, 

TERESA AGUILA,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

CORPORATE CATERERS IV, INC.,

a Florida profit corporation

Defendant,

CORPORATE CATERERS II, INC., 

JIM GASS,

individually, 

Defendants - Appellees.

 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 24, 2017)

Case: 16-15838 Date Filed: 03/24/2017 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and PARKER,

* Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Having carefully considered the written submissions and the arguments of 

the parties and of the amicus curiae, we conclude that there is no free standing

claim for relief under section 203(m) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 

203(m), where, as here, there is no allegation that the employer does not pay the 

minimum wage. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.

 * Honorable Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, 

sitting by designation.

Case: 16-15838 Date Filed: 03/24/2017 Page: 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


          As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in this Form 10-K of our report dated February 13,
1998. It should be noted that we have not audited any financial statements of
the company subsequent to December 31, 1997 or performed any audit procedures
subsequent to the date of our report.



                                   ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Dallas, Texas,
March 31, 1998
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Glenn R. Cole, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of NightHawk Radiology Holdings, Inc.



|                         |  |     |  |                                                  
|------------------------ |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 14, 2008 |  | By: |  | /S/    GLENN R.
COLE                             
|                         |  |     |  | Glenn R. Cole                                    
|                         |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                         |  |     |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
#### John & Wm. Pugh *v.*Commonwealth.

Intoxicating Liquors — Place of Drinking.

Although persons who purchased whisky of defendant may have bad the legal right to drink it where they pleased, such defendant ■had no power to authorize them to drink it, nor to consent that they should drink it, in the public highway adjacent to his premises.

APPEAL FROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 4, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The indictment charges that the two appellants kept a tippling house. The proof shows that they were merchants, doing business together or in partnership.

Two or more persons m!ay jointly keep a tippling house, and upon conviction, they are each liable for the penalty imposed by law, just as each joint offender is liable for the commission of any other character of offense. *Caldwell v. Commonwealth, 7*Dana 229; *Gray, etc., v. Commonwealth, 9*Dana 300.

Instructions Nos. 1 and 2 seem to be free from, objection, and instruction No. 3, when considered in connection with No. 1, was *697not calculated to mislead the jury. Obviously those who purchased the whisky may have had the legal right to drink it where they pleased, but appellants had no power to authorize them to drink it, nor to consent that they should drink it in the public highway adjacent to their premises.

*A. H.*Ward, *for appellant.*

The answer of the court embodied in the 3d instruction imparted this information to the jury; it is not to be presumed that they, in considering this instruction, disregarded the law in instruction No. 1.

Judgment *affirmed.*

-, *for appellee.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,679
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  124,223
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,797
<INVENTORY>                                      4,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,817
<PP&E>                                         171,064
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,394
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 355,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           40,048
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           476
<OTHER-SE>                                     294,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   355,341
<SALES>                                        224,493
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               238,319
<CGS>                                          191,583
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  191,583
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                11,030
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,939
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,767
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,271
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,496
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,496
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .43


</TABLE>