alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Charles Paulus v. Caroline A. Nunn.

*Chattel mortgage*— Possession *of subsequent purchaser*— Settlement *of case.*

A chattel mortgagee cannot be deprived, of possession by subsequent purchasers without tender or payment.

This Court will not treat a case as settled and arranged when no motion 'is made to dismiss, and where the fact of settlement is disputed.

Error to Wayne.

Submitted Apr. 12.

Decided Apr. 19.

Replevin. Defendant brings error.

Reversed.

*Stewart dh Gallovjay*for appellant.

*H. F. JBrownson*for appellee.

Campbell, J.

Paulus sued Mrs. Nunn and also Maxy C. Allor in replevin to obtain possession of a piano which Allor, as constable, had seized on a replevin in favor of Mrs. Nunn against one Coll. It appeared before the justice that Mrs. Nunn held a mortgage made by one Coll before he sold the piano to Johnson and Mahoney, from whom Paulus purchased, and that both they and Paulus knew of *191this mortgage.,- Upon this there was no dispute. There was some room for controversy on some later dealings between Mrs. Nunn and Coll, which would have had a bearing on the amount, but not on the existence of Mrs. Nunn’s mortgage. Under these circumstances the justice rendered judgment in favor of Paulus against both defendants for the whole property, and this was affirmed at the circuit.

There can be no question that this judgment is wrong, and that in the absence of any waiver by Mrs. Nunn, and of any finding by the justice of the value of her interest, she should have judgment of return. If she recovers the property under the judgment Paulus can pay her mortgage, and get back the piano. If not then she can recover on the replevin bond her real interest with such other items as in law belong to her.

The judgments of the circuit and justice’s courts must be reversed and judgment entered here of return of the property to Mrs. Nunn, with costs of all the courts to her, as Allor has not shown any separate interest of his own, and will be sufficiently protected by the general reversal.

A suggestion was put on file that Mrs. Nunn had privately settled with Paulus. She, however, denies any such settlement made with an understanding of the facts, and as her .attorneys claim interests, and no motion has been made for Paulus to dismiss, we should not be justified in considering any such claim.

The other Justices concurred.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1415

PHILLIP MIZRACH, as Successor Personal Representative of 

the Estate of Abraham I. Kurland, Deceased, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08-

cv-02030-AMD) 

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Phillip Mizrach, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Harold Barnard, Allen 

F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Phillip Mizrach, as personal representative of the 

Estate of Abraham I. Kurland, appeals from the district court’s 

orders dismissing without prejudice his medical malpractice 

complaint filed pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680 (2006), and denying his motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Mizrach v. United States, No. 1:08-cv02030-AMD (D. Md. Feb. 17, 2009 & Mar. 11, 2009). 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
NICE Community Coordinating Council

Meeting Agenda

Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 | Time: 3:30-5:00 p.m. ET

Adobe Connect session: https://nist-nice.adobeconnect.com/nicewg/

SharePoint Page: https://nistgov.sharepoint.com/sites/NICEProgram/NICEWG

I. Introduction and Ground Rules

II. Opening Remarks

a. Industry Co-Chair – Jon Brickey, Senior Vice President, Mastercard

b. Academic Co-Chair – Marni Baker-Stein, Chief Academic Officer and Provost, 

Western Governors University

c. Government Co-Chair – Rodney Petersen, Director of NICE

III. Introducing NICE Community Coordinating Council

a. NICE Community Coordinating Council (formerly NICE Working Group)

b. NICE Communities of Interest (formerly NICE Subgroups)

c. NICE Working Groups

d. Operational Changes 

IV. Standing Items

a. Strategy Stories – New Developments that Align to NICE Strategic Plan

b. Report Roundup – Learning from Good Ideas

c. Framework Feature – Applications and Uses of Workforce Framework for 

Cybersecurity

d. Research Review – Highlighting Research Results or Topics for Further Study

V. Working Group Updates

a. Promoting Career Discovery

b. Transforming Learning Process

c. Modernizing Talent Management

VI. Communities of Interest Updates

a. Apprenticeships in Cybersecurity

Tony Bryan, Executive Director, CyberUp; or, Jennifer Oddo Executive Director, 

Strategic Workforce Education and Innovation, Youngstown State University

b. Cybersecurity Skills Competitions 

Amelia Phillips, Highline College; or Brad Wolfenden, EmberSec

c. K12 Cybersecurity Educators 

Terrance Campbell, CCTE Cybersecurity Teacher - Shelby County Schools; or 

Laurin Buchanan, Secure Decisions; or Patrick Schultz, National Business 
Professionals of America, Director of Technology Integration 

VII. Project Progress Reports

a. Centers of Academic Excellence (CAE) in Cybersecurity Community

Presenter: Tony Coulson, California State University, San Bernardino

URL: https://www.caecommunity.org/

b. Cybersecurity Career Awareness Week

Presenter: Danielle Santos, NICE 

URL: https://www.nist.gov/itl/applied-cybersecurity/nice/events/nationalcybersecurity-career-awareness-week

c. NICE Annual Conference

Presenter: Randy Pestana, Florida International University

URL: https://niceconference.org/

d. NICE K12 Cybersecurity Education Conference

Presenter: Susana Barraza, NICE

URL: https://www.k12cybersecurityconference.org/

VIII. Featured Topic

Topic: Revisions to the Workforce Framework for Cybersecurity (NICE Framework)

Presenter: Karen Wetzel, Manager of the NICE Framework

URL: nist.gov/nice/framework

IX. Next Meeting Reminder

The Next NICE Community Coordinating Council meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 

January 27, 2021.
10619.

#### Towns *v.*Wells.

Decided October 9, 1919.

Bloodworth, J.

1. Tile petition as amended set forth a cause of action, and the demurrer thereto was properly overruled.

2. The motion for a new trial contains the general grounds only, there is evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and a new trial was properly .refused.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.*

*243Complaint; from city court of Floyd county—Judge Norm ally. April 34, 1919.

The action was against the alleged father of a two-year-old girl, by her grandmother, for the value of necessaries and care of the child. The petition alleges: Since the birth of said child, notwithstanding that it is the duty of said father to support said child, he has abandoned the child and failed and refused to support it, and has failed and refused to furnish it with the necessities of life. Petitioner is the grandmother of said child, and if she had not taken charge of the child and provided it with necessities of life, and cared for it, the child would have died. The mother of the child has deserted and abandoned the child. Upon the abandoning of the child by the defendant, he left the child in the possession and custody of plaintiff, where it has remained ever since. Petitioner has supported the child since its birth, and provided it with necessities of life since that time, and the father of the child has not paid her for such service. The care, support, and necessaries of life furnished the child by petitioner are reasonably worth $15 a month, and the defendant is justly indebted to petitioner in that sum for 35 months, beginning January 30, 1916, to wit, in the sum of $375. A general demurrer to the petition was overruled. The defendant in his answer admitted that since the birth of the child he had refused to support it, and had not paid anything towards its support; he denied that he was its father. The only evidence on the trial was the testimony of the plaintiff. Her testimony supported the allegations of fact in her petition. The verdict was for the plaintiff.

*Harris &*Harris, for plaintiff in error.

*W. B.*Mebane, contra.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Fidel Serrano Menjivar

, * From the County Court at

Law No. 2 of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR142949

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00378

- CR * November 12 , 2015

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright

, C. J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
#### Hugh Parker v. William Fields.

*Ditches*— Xngwies *to lands.*

A man obtained permission from the overseer of highways to clear out a certain ditch “if it would benefit the road.” *Seld,*that his brother could not maintain an action against the overseer for injuries done his premises by the improvement.

Error to Shiawassee.

Submitted April 13.

Decided April 25.

Case. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

*A. li. McBride*for appellant.

*Hugh McGurd/y*for appellee.

Graves; C. J.

The plaintiff sued Fields before a justice and declared in “ an action of trespass on the case, for digging a ditch and diverting water from its natural course,, thereby carrying it on the premises of the plaintiff and depriving plaintiff of. the use of his land, destroying his crops growing there, and making great trouble in carrying the water away, to his damage $100.”

The cause was appealed to the circuit court and a hearing-being had before a jury a verdict was returned in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff brought error. The record is quite imperfect, the bill of exceptions referring to several exhibits which are not returned, but the defect does not appear to be important.

"We shall not examine the charges of error. Unless the plaintiff had a cause of action he was not prejudiced, and the evidence shows that he had not. For many years a shallow ditch had existed by the side of the highway, which had been treated by the plaintiff, while acting as overseer of highways, and by the public generally, as a proper drain for the benefit of the road, and the defendant being overseer of highways the plaintiff’s brother called on him and asked per*251mission to clear out this ditch and the defendant thereupon told him he might do so if it would benefit the road. The defendant was then absent and the plaintiffs brother proceeded to clean out the ditch and the defendant’s connection with what was done went no further than his consent as here stated.

There is strong reason for belief that whatever change was in fact made in the ditch was wholly justifiable on public reasons and that the plaintiff had no ground for legal complaint. But if the act went too far and trenched injuri. ously on the plaintiff’s interests the defendant was not in fault. The wrong, if any, was in his brother’s abuse of the permission given to him. The facts all support that view.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
#### J. W. Hawkins *v.*Jones Dean.

Execution — Proceeding by Claimant of Property.

A proceeding by a claimant of property in the bands of a constable to prevent the sale of the property should be by notice and motion on the bond as provided by § 716, Civ. Code.

*512Justices' of the Peace — Judgment.

Under § 719, Giv. Code, providing that the bond of the claimant should be returned to the justices of the peace if the execution issued from such a court, the justices can only give judgment for the amount of each execution and 10 per cent interest thereon, and it is the amount of the execution that gives them jurisdiction and not the value of the property.

APPEAL FROM MERGER CIRCUIT COURT.

February 25, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

If the bond declared on is to be regarded as a common law obligation the demurrer thereto was properly sustained. It is nowhere alleged that the execution of the plaintiffs is unsatisfied, or that he has sustained any damage by reason of this: alleged claim of the appellee.

The proceeding by which the claimant of the property prevented the sale by the constable was derived altogether from- statutory enactment and the bond executed in accordance therewith. The mode of ascertaining his right to it, as well as the remedy allowed the plaintiff, is clearly defined. This special proceeding should have been adopted and is the only mode of determining the right of property in such cases. The proceeding should have been by notice and motion on the bond as provided by Sec. 716, Civil Code. Nor do we think the circuit court had jurisdiction. Sec. 719 provides that the bond of the claimant shall be returned to a justice of the peace if the executions issued from such a court. It is true that the bond recites, that the amount of the two executions is sixty-three dollars, but this does not deny the justice of jurisdiction as the only question to be tried by him is whether or not the property levied on is subject to the execution.

If found subject and the value of the property to be one hundred dollars, still the justice can only give judgment for the amount of each execution and ten per cent interest thereon. It is the amount of the execution that gives the jurisdiction and not the value of the property. If a constable levies on a house of the value of five hundred dollars with an execution for twenty, all the justice can do when the claimant of the house is unsuccessful is to render judg*513ment for the amount of the debt and ten per cent thereon, and if the value of the property is less than the execution, the ten per cent is only to be paid upon the value. (Sec. 719, Civil Code.)

*C. A. Hardin, far appellants.*

*E. J. Polk, for appellee.*

Judgment *affirmed.*
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Martin D. Madaus, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Millipore Corporation;
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 23, 2010

/S/    MARTIN D. MADAUSMartin D. Madaus President and Chief Executive
Officer
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70263-70264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27881]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


 In the Matter of Bravo Enterprises Ltd.; Immunotech 
Laboratories, Inc.; Myriad Interactive Media, Inc.; Wholehealth 
Products, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

November 20, 2014.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
the issuers listed below.
    1. Bravo Enterprises Ltd. is a Nevada corporation with its 
principal place of business in Patchogue, New York. Questions have 
arisen concerning the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated 
information, including information about the relationship between the 
company's business prospects and the current Ebola crisis. The company 
is quoted on OTC Link (previously ``Pink Sheets'') operated by OTC 
Markets Group Inc. (``OTC Link''), under the stock symbol OGNG.
    2. Immunotech Laboratories, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its 
principal place of business in Monrovia, California. Questions have 
arisen concerning the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated 
information, including information about the relationship between the 
company's business prospects and the current Ebola crisis. The company 
is quoted on OTC Link under the stock symbol IMMB.
    3. Myriad Interactive Media, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with 
its principal place of business in Toronto, Canada. Questions have 
arisen concerning the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated 
information, including information about the relationship between the 
company's business prospects and the current Ebola crisis.

[[Page 70264]]

The company is quoted on OTC Link under the stock symbol MYRY.
    4. Wholehealth Products, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its 
principal place of business in Anaheim, California. Questions have 
arisen concerning the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated 
information, including information about the relationship between the 
company's business prospects and the current Ebola crisis. The company 
is quoted on OTC Link under the stock symbol GWPC.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require the suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, 
on November 20, 2014, through 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 4, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-27881 Filed 11-20-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          47,926
<SECURITIES>                                    58,651
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,000)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,704
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               129,416
<PP&E>                                           8,420
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,453)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 137,465
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,309
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           155
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,001
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   137,465
<SALES>                                          7,560
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,310
<CGS>                                            5,830
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,830
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   186
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,792
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,830
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,962
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,962
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58
        

</TABLE>
10591.

#### Carlisle *v.*Illinois Central Railroad Company.

Decided July 17, 1919.

Action for damages; from Fulton superior court—Judge Pendleton. March 5, 1919.

*Neufville & Neufville,*for plaintiff.

*Little, Powell, Smith & Goldstein,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

This case is controlled by the decision oí the Supreme Court in the case of *DeBow*v. *Vicksburg <& Shreveport Railroad Co.,*148 *6a.*738 - (98 S. E. 381), on the question of service of process upon the commercial agent of the Illinois Central Railroad Company, a non-resident railroad company with no line'of railroad in the State of Georgia. Under the evidence the court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of" the defendant, on the traverse of service.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Wade, C. J., mid Jenkins, J., concur.*
9364.

#### Gulf Paving Co. *v.*City of Atlanta.

Decided June 9, 1919.

Action for money had and received; from Fulton superior court— Judge Bell. November 6,1917.

The substance of the petition is set out in *22 Ga. App.*374 (96 S. E. 393). The decision there reported was reversed on certiorari.

*Anderson, Rountree & Crenshaw,*for plaintiff.

*J. L. Mayson, 8. D. Hewlett,*for defendant.

Bloodworth, J.

The petition in this ease alleged a cause of action, and it was erroneous to dismiss the petition on general demurrer. See opinion of Supreme Court in this case, 149 *Ga.*(99 S. E. 374).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*