alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Judith Sale, etc., *v.*R. H. Snyder.

Executors and Administrators — Sale of Land — Bond by Administrator.

An administrator was held to be tb© proper custodian of money due bis intestate’s estate, and where by agreement 'between tb© widow, a life tenant, and tb© remainderman, the land was sold, it was the duty of the administrator to tender tb© widow a bond with good security, and to receive and bold the portion of the money due the estate.

APPEAL PROM LOUISVILLE* CHANCERY COURT.

March 31, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

'It is sufficiently proved that the sale of land to Mrs. Woolford was made under an agreement between the parties in interest. Th.at each of the four remaindermen (including B. A. Wilhoit) was to take one-fourth of the purchase money paid upon the execution to Mrs. Sale of bonds, with approved security, securing to* her during life the payment of six per cent, interest on their respective shares as it should annually accrue. It does not matter that B. A. Wilhoit did not sign the writing setting out this contract. By reason of his *593failure to sign, it never became operative, but still the contract existed, and is established by oral evidence.

R. A. Snyder, as administrator of B. A. Wilhoit, succeeds to all his rights. It was his duty to tender Mrs. Sale a bond, with good security, and to receive and hold that portion of the money due to his intestate. It is not material that he can not be compelled to disburse it in the payment of his intestate’s debts until after Mrs. Sale’s death even if such be the fact; he is the proper custodian of the fund.

The contract of loan between Mrs. Sale and James Wilhoit presents no obstacle to appellee’s recovery. Mrs. Woolford does not complain that the wife of B. A. Wilhoit, deceased, has not relinquished her right to dower in the land. She as yet has asserted no such right, and appellants do not show that they have reason to apprehend danger on account of their warranty of title.

Mrs. Sale’s amended petition was not filed and is not a part of the record. *McDowell, etc., v. Bennet, 7*Bush 474.

James Wilhoit purchased the note on B. A. Wilhoit’s estate after his death. He can not assert this claim in this suit, and secure its payment in full. He charges that the estate is insolvent; such being the case, he must pro rate with the other creditors. We forbear to express an opinion as to appellee’s rights under the alleged assignment by the intestate to him of their claims. This question can be more properly determined in a contest with the heirs and creditors of B. A. Wilhoit, deceased.

Judgment *affirmed.*

-, *for appellants.*

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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,333
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                       465
<INVENTORY>                                      5,933
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,916
<PP&E>                                         222,753
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,687
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,925
<BONDS>                                         43,366
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,787
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   140,687
<SALES>                                        123,710
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,710
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,088
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,628
<INCOME-TAX>                                       684
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                944
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       944
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PHILANTHROPIST.COM, INC.,

Appellant

v.

GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF 

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS,

Appellee

______________________ 

2021-2208

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

92065178, 92065255.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

DEREK M. GILLIS, Barton Gilman LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellant. Also represented by C. ALEXANDER 

CHIULLI, Savage Law Partners, Providence, RI. 

 BASSAM IBRAHIM, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

BRYCE J. MAYNARD, LAURA PITTS. 

 ______________________ 

Case: 21-2208 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 08/08/2022
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (CHEN, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

August 8, 2022

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-2208 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 08/08/2022
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Everest
Futures Fund, L.P. for the first quarter of 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000837919
<NAME> EVEREST FUTURES FUND L P
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      50,762,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  189,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            50,951,236
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              50,951,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,658,973
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,292,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                50,951,236
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           (3,306,826)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  528,483
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,835,309)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,835,309)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,835,309)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (151.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (151.17)
        

</TABLE>
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program

ISSUE DATE:

July 12, 2021

LAB BULLETIN

NUMBER: LB-139-2021

LAP: Energy Efficient 

Lighting LAP

SUBJECT: Release of NIST Handbook 150-1, 2021 Edition

NIST Handbook 150-1, which presents requirements specific to the accreditation of laboratories under the 

NVLAP Energy Efficient Lighting LAP, has been revised, along with the corresponding NIST Handbook 

150-1 checklist. The handbook was revised with participation from experts in the field of lighting efficiency

testing. The handbook has been revised to remove requirements redundant to ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

The 2021 edition of NIST Handbook 150-1 supersedes and replaces the 2019 edition. It is available for 

downloading (PDF format) from the NVLAP website <http://www.nist.gov/nvlap> under NVLAP 

Program-Specific Handbooks. The corresponding NIST Handbook 150-1 Checklist has also been updated 

and posted on the NVLAP website under NVLAP Publications and Forms.

The requirements of the revision go into effect August 1, 2021, and all assessments after that date will be to 

the requirements of the 2021 revision. Since this revision contains no new requirements, laboratories and 

assessors may use it and the associated checklist immediately when performing assessments if agreeable to 

both parties.

Questions concerning the revised handbook or requirements for accreditation should be directed to

Timothy Rasinski at 301-975-6697 or timothy.rasinski@nist.gov.

NVLAP LAB BULLETIN NUMBER: LB-139-2021 PAGE: 1 of 1
<PAGE>   1


                                  EXHIBIT 23(a)


               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants




Voice Control Systems, Inc.
Dallas, Texas

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8, pertaining to the Voice Control Systems, Inc. 1998
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, of our report dated January 30, 1998, relating to
the financial statements of Voice Control Systems, Inc. appearing in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                                     /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP



Dallas, Texas
June 2, 1998
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4349

To reinstate Department of Energy Order No. 202–03–2. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2004

Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself and Mr. ISRAEL) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL

To reinstate Department of Energy Order No. 202–03–2.

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

3 SECTION 1. CROSS SOUND CABLE ORDER. 

4 Notwithstanding Department of Energy Order No. 

5 202–03–4, issued by the Secretary of Energy on May 7, 

6 2004, or any other provision of law, Department of En7 ergy Order No. 202–03–2, issued by the Secretary of En8 ergy on August 28, 2003, is reinstated effective on the 

9 date of enactment of this Act and shall remain in effect 

10 unless rescinded by Act of Congress.

Æ
#### W. F. Dogget *v.*J. D. Blades & Shirley.

Ejectment — Possession of Defendant — Recovery.

Where plaintiff in ejectment fails to show that defendant wais in possession of any part of the land when the suit was brought, plaintiff is not entitled to any relief against defendant.

APPEAL PROMC PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 20, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

That Dogget was apprised of the claim* asserted by Shirley to the small piece of land in his possession at the time he contracted with, and accepted the deed from1 Blades, is made perfectly clear'by the testimony of himself and Shoewalter, his own witness. But notwithstanding all this, upon the pleadings he was entitled to judgment against Shirley for the possession thereof.

It is expressly charged that Shirley is in possession of a portion of the land conveyed to- appellee by Blades. Process was served upon him and he failed to answer.- He can not be allowed to take advantage of Blades’ defense. Appellant holds the legal title to the land, and is presumptively entitled to- the possession. The relief prayed against Shirley does not affect Blades, and he ought not to be allowed to defend for him.

As Shirley failed to answer, judgment should have been rendered against him for the possession of so much of the Blades tract as he had in his possession. It was, therefore, error to dismiss appellant’s petition as to him.

*361*Clarke &*Dills, *for appellant.*

Lee, *for appellee.*

As appellant utterly failed to show that Blades was in possession of any part of the land when the suit was instituted he was entitled to no relief as against him: The petition does not set up a state of case authorizing a rescission of the contract of sale. Judgment was properly rendered against appellant for the balance due on the purchase money.

For the error indicated the judgment as to Shirley is reversed and the cause remanded, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 2.2
            FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF REORGANIZATION


     This First Amendment (the "Amendment") to Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization (the "Agreement") dated June 24, 1997, between Premier
Bancshares, Inc. ("Premier") and Citizens Gwinnett Bankshares, Inc. ("Citizens")
is made and entered into as of the 24th day of July 1997. Unless otherwise
defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Agreement.

     WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to extend the
termination period in connection with a determination whether the Merger may be
accounted for as a pooling of interests.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, mutual covenants and
agreements herein contained, and for the purpose of amending the Agreement,
Premier and Citizens agree as follows:

     1.  That Section 11.6 of the Agreement be deleted in its entirety and  the
following Section 11.6 shall be inserted in lieu thereof:

               "11.6. ACCOUNTING TREATMENT.  By either party on or before August
     8, 1997, if the board of directors of a party determines that the Merger
     may not be structured in a manner satisfactory to both boards of directors
     in their sole discretion to qualify for "pooling of interests" accounting
     treatment."

          Except as specifically amended herein the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.  In witness whereof, the parties have caused this
Amendment to be signed by their duly authorized officers as of the date first
shown above.

Attest:                             PREMIER BANCSHARES, INC.


/s/ Barbara J. Burtt                /s/ Darrell D. Pittard
--------------------                ----------------------
Barbara J. Burtt, Secretary         Darrell D. Pittard, Chairman

         [CORPORATE SEAL]


Attest:                             CITIZENS GWINNETT BANKSHARES, INC.



/s/ Darrell W. Moore                /s/ Thomas J. Martin
--------------------                --------------------
Secretary                           Thomas J. Martin, President

          [CORPORATE SEAL]
#### STATE v. WHITEHEAD

No. 125P97

Case below: 125 N.C.App. 422

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 May 1997.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,402,421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               16,589,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 31,011,766
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            54,103,117
<PP&E>                                      41,470,473
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,229,849
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              87,185,567
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,583,114
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,383,486
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,453,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                87,185,567
<SALES>                                     90,061,170
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            90,061,170
<CGS>                                       74,517,303
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               74,517,303
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,448,867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,990,780)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (287,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,703,780)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,703,780)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4326 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4326

 To authorize an outpatient clinic to be established in Denton, Texas, 
                for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2004

 Mr. Burgess introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize an outpatient clinic to be established in Denton, Texas, 
                for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT 
              CLINIC IN DENTON, TEXAS.

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may take such steps as necessary 
to establish an outpatient clinic in Denton, Texas.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Principal Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





I, Gandolfo Verra, Chief Financial Officer of Cordia Corporation (the Registrant) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period June 30, 2006 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report):

(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 Registrant.



By:/s/ Gandolfo Verra

Gandolfo Verra

Chief Financial Officer



August 14, 2006









*

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cordia Corporation and will be retained by Cordia Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.8



                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our
report dated May 14, 1997, on the financial statements of Ameron Broadcasting, 
Inc. (and to all references to our firm) included in or made a part of this
registration statement.

                                             ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



St. Louis, Missouri
May 20, 1998
10724.

#### Standifer *v.*The State.

Broyles, O. J.

1. Every special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete and understandable within itself. It is impossible for this court, from a reading of the first special ground of the motion for a new trial, to say whether the court erred in admitting the testimony therein complained of. A reference to the brief of the evidence would be necessary to decide that question. This ground, therefore, can not be considered.

2. Upon the trial of one charged with murder, it is not permissible for the State to introduce in evidence the sworn testimony of the accused given as a witness at the coroner’s inquest, where the accused, although not then under arrest, was sworn not on his own motion but on that *330of the coroner, and where, although questioned by the coroner in regard to the homicide and his connection with it, he was not informed of his right to refuse to answer any question which might tend to incriminate him. Under such circumstances the testimony elicited by the coroner could not be considered as having been voluntarily given. See, in this connection, *Adams*v. *State,*129 *Ga.*248 (58 S. E. 822, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 468, 12 Ann. Cas. 158); Tuttle *v.*People, 33 Colo. 24379 Pac. 1035, 70 L. R. A. 33, 3 Ann. Cas. 513).

Decided November 4, 1919.

Conviction of manslaughter; from Jasper superior court—Judge Park. June 7, 1919.

*W. 8. Florence, Greene F. Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle*Gompbell, *solicitor-general,*contra.

3. Under the foregoing ruling the court erred in admitting in evidence, over the timely and appropriate objections of the defendant, the sworn testimony of the accused given at the coroner’s inquest held upon the body of the deceased.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luhe and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
10798.

#### Jackson *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for larceny; from Richmond superior court—Judge H. C. Hammond. July 3, 1919.

*O. A. Picquet,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. L. Franklin, solicitor-general, John M. Graham,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial in this case contained the usual general grounds only. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Lulce, J., concur.*
Exhibit 10(a1) 

Change of control 

The following executives are covered by this change of control agreement: 

3-Year 

Ralph F. Hake 

George C. Moore 

Roger K. Scholten 

Mark Krivoruchka 

Ernest Park 

Thomas J. Piersa 

Karen Lynn 

James R. Caldwell 

Robert C. Breese 

Douglas Huffer 

 

2-Year 

Steve Benton 

Paul Bognar 

Annette Bravard 

Robert Hardin 

Stephen Ingham 

Steve Klyn 

Arthur Learmonth 

Patricia Martin 

Roy Rumbough 

James Starkweather 

Christopher Wignall