alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alexander Hays *v.*Lettice Bryan.

Public Lands — Actual Settler.

The act of building a cabin on land for one’s oiwn use and clearing the land, constituted the person so doing an actual settler.

*173APPEAL PROM GRAYSON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 9, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

It is alleged in the answer and cross-petition of the defendants, Hays and Merridith, in which they seek to vacate the patent issued to the appellee, Bryan, “that at the date of the patent and of the entry and survey, on which appellee’s patent issued, they were in the possession of the whole of the land covered by the patent and claiming it as their own, and that they and those under whom they claim had been continuously in possession for more than sixteen years. That appellee did not give them, or either of them, notice as required by law before making the entry and survey on which the patent issued.”

The appellee, in reply to this cross-petition, simply denies “that the defendants, or either of them, were in the possession of the whole tract at the date of the patent, the entry or survey.”

The evidence shows that Hays only claimed fifty acres of this land and that he was in the actual possession of this much of the tract at the time the entry and survey was made, and this view of the case is strongly corroborated by the effort made on the part of the appellee to give the appellant notice that he intended to have the land patented. It is certain that other entries and surveys had been made on this same land, or a part of it, prior to the entry of the appellee. These surveys were not made by the appellant, Hays, but by those under whom he entered when the appellee had the surveys made. She seems to have been aware of the fact that these surveys had been made and was attempting to avoid them by not including them in the boundary of land for which she desired to obtain a patent, but that the patent, when it did issue, included these former entries, is clearly shown. The defendant, Hays, commenced building his house in 1862 but did not move into it until 1865. He claimed the land and exercised acts of ownership over it. These acts, consisting in building a cabin for his own use and clearing the land, constituted him an actual settler and, if not, this land had been surveyed by those under whom he claimed for the purpose of obtaining a patent therefor. The entry and survey of the appellee afterwards made, so far as it conflicts with the fifty acres claimed by appellant, was void. See Section 8 of Chapter 102, 2 Vol. Revised Statutes, page 431. No *174notice, is shown to have been given the . appellant. In the attempt to show notice the appellee proves by her own witness that Hays was then cutting timber on the premises. The judgment of the court below is reversed and cause remanded with directions to render a judgment for Hays for the fifty acres. As to the remainder of the land, so far as appellant is concerned, there is no reason why the appellee should not be adjudged to be the owner, as the appellant, upon his own showing, has neither the title nor the possession.

*W. P. D. Bush, for appellant.*

*Lindsay, for appellee.*
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>       5

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             12-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  06-30-1999
<CASH>                            44,278
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  44,278
<PP&E>                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    44,278
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             40,271
<BONDS>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                          24,500
<OTHER-SE>                       (20,943)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      44,278
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       0
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   5,554
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        0
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                      (5,554)
<EPS-BASIC>                          .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                        .00
#### Joseph Bondurant *v.*Commonwealth.

Intoxicating Liquors — Tippling-house—Instruction.

Under § 1, art. 4„ ch. 99 (2 R. Stat. 411), relating to the beeping of tippling-houses, an instruction that if the jury believe from the evidence that defendant suffered or permitted his brother to sell whisky in defendant’s ¡house more than once in any quantity, which •defendant Buffered or permitted to be drunk in a house about 40 yards from the place of sale, he is guilty of keeping a tippling-house, and the jury should so find, in the absence of proof that accused was •licensed to sell by the drink, is erroneous, since the liquor was not drunk on the premises where sold or on premises adjacent thereto'.

APPEAL FROM MARSHALL CIRCUIT COURT.

December 7, 1872.

*46
      *J. C. Gilbert, for appellant.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters: '

The appellant was indicted, and tried in the court below for keeping a tippling house.

On the trial the jury were on motion of appellee charged by the court in Instruction No. 2,

That if they believe from the evidence that defendant suffered, or permitted his brother to sell whiskey in defendant’s house more than once in any quantity, which whiskey defendant suffered or permitted to be drunk in a house, or shop about forty yards distant from the house, when sold, he is guilty of keeping a tippling house, and they should so find, unless he proves that he was licensed to sell by the drink, and that although he may have merchant’s license, he is guilty, if he. did not have other than his merchant’s license.

This instruction was erroneous. By Sec. 1, Art. 4, Chap. 99, 2 Vol. R. S. 411, it is provided that, any person unless he shall have a license therefor, who’ shall sell in any quantity wine or spirituous liquors, or the mixture of either, in any house to be drunk therein, or on, or adjacent to the premises where sold or sell the the same, and it shall be so drunk, shall be deemed guilty of keeping a tippling house, and fined the sum of sixty dollars. It certainly can not, as a legal or mathematical proposition, be maintained that a house or shop within forty yards of a house where whisky is sold without other evidence is on premises adjacent, or contiguous to, or touching (all of which mean the same thing), said house or premises but such is the effect of the instruction given by the court. Several houses, or premises may intervene and such is the case frequently as universal observation and experience teach us all — therefore, as appellant was not guilty unless the whisky was drank on the premises where sold, or in a house, or on premises adjacent to or touching the place where sold, the instruction quoted was erroneous and prejudicial to appellant.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial and for further proceedings consistent herewith.

*-for appellee.*
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, Sean M. Cary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report of Willamette Valley Vineyards Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2006 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 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
the financial condition and results of operations of Willamette Valley
Vineyards Inc.

Date: May 15, 2006
By:    /s/ Sean M. Cary
Name: Sean M. Cary
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

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





I, Lorie M. Guerrera, Chief Accounting 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 September 30, 2004 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/ Lorie M. Guerrera



Lorie M. Guerrera



Chief Accounting Officer



November 12, 2004









*

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.
NIST PSCR RESEARCH INVESTMENTS BOLSTER 

NORTH DAKOTA’S ECONOMY 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Public Safety 

Communications Research (PSCR) Division is the primary federal laboratory 

focused on conducting research, development, testing, and evaluation for 

public safety communications technologies. Their mission is to accelerate 

communications innovation in support of public safety communities and the 

citizens they serve. 

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 allocated $300 Million 

from the Public Safety Trust fund to NIST PSCR to perform critical public safety 

communications R&D during a 10-year period. PSCR implemented numerous 

research mechanisms to support the development and deployment of the 

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network: grants, Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) contracts, prize challenge competitions, and internal research. 

These research mechanisms were housed within six research portfolios and crosscutting initiatives to maximize their impact: 

•	 User Interface/User Experience •	 Public Safety Analytics 

•	 Location-Based Services •	 Security 

•	 Mission Critical Voice •	 Resilient Systems 

While the ultimate impact of these research mechanisms is the increased safety 

of first responders and their communities through improved communications

technologies, PSCR was interested in better understanding how their R&D 

investments to date result in economic impacts that ripple outward to state 

economies. An independent analysis was conducted to demonstrate how PSCR’s 

deployment of the $300 Million from the Public Safety Trust Fund translated into 

broader impacts to the United States, including jobs, earnings, value added, and 

total economic output. PSCR’s R&D investments resulted in economic output 

in 33 of the 50 states. Results of the analysis are presented here. 

For more information, see NIST PSCR’s Economic Impact Study. 

1 Prize Challenge 

Participant 

Awards Totaling 

$0.01 Million 

For additional information of PSCR’s research programs, visit https://www.nist.gov/ctl/pscr. 

NORTH DAKOTA BY THE NUMBERS 

NIST INVESTMENT 

$0.01 Million 

OUTPUT 

$0.28 Million 

VALUE-ADDED 

$0.06 Million 

EARNINGS 

$0.03 Million 

JOBS 

1 

Output: the total value of economic 

activity circulating through the U.S. 

economy generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Value-Added: how much the 

combined U.S. state economies 

grew over a period of time due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

Earnings: the change in household 

earnings in the U.S. economy 

generated by PSCR’s R&D 

investments 

Jobs: the change in the number of 

full- and part-time jobs generated 

by each one million dollar change 

in U.S. economic activity due to 

PSCR’s R&D investments 

*All dollar amounts presented 

in 2022 and reflect data as of 

October 2022.

**All values are rounded; thus, the 

sum of the components may not 

sum exactly to the NIST Investment 

amount.
Exhibit
10.11


 


AMENDMENT
TO LONG RANGE PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN


 


THE TJX
COMPANIES, INC.


 


 


Solely for the
purpose of the special Awards made on September 7, 2005, Section 5 of
the Corporation’s Long Range Performance Incentive Plan is amended to permit Awards
with a two-year performance cycle consisting of FYE ‘07 and FYE ‘08 rather than
a three-year performance cycle.
EX-10.2


    EXTENSION
      - MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT

    (All
      amounts are stipulated in United States dollars)

    


    THIS
      EXTENSION of AGREEMENT dated effective as of the 1st day of May
      2005.

    


    


    BETWEEN:

    


    AMERASIA
      KHAN ENTERPRISES LTD.

    #200
      -
      841 West Broadway

    Vancouver,
      BC. Canada, V5Z 1J9

    A
      Nevada
      State Incorporated Company

    (Hereinafter
      called the "Company")

                                                    OF
      THE FIRST
      PART

    


    AND:

    


    Johnny
      C.N. Lee

    #803
      Chung Ying Building

    20
      - 20A
      Connaught Road West

    Hong
      Kong

    (Hereinafter
      called "Lee")

                                                    OF
      THE SECOND
      PART

    


    


    WHEREAS:

    


    AMERASIA
      KHAN ENTERPRISES LTD. and JOHNNY C.N. LEE had entered a Management Service
      Agreement “The Agreement” dated May 01, 2004. The Agreement will be ended on
      April 30, 2005. 

    


    NOW
      THEREFORE THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED to enter into an extension to “The Agreement”
      for another 12 months period starting May 01, 2005 and ended April 30, 2006.
      

    


    All
      other
      terms and conditions pertaining in the original Agreement remain the
      same.

    


    No
      amendment or termination of this Agreement shall be valid unless it is in
      writing and executed by both parties.

    


    Time
      shall be of the essence of this Agreement.

    


    


    


    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    


     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
      _________ day of ________________, 2005.

    


    


    


    AMERASIA
      KHAN ENTERPRISES LTD.

    By
      its
      authorized signatory    By
      its
      authorized signatory

    /s/
      David Ho                         /s/
      Johnny C.N.
      Lee

    


    Signature
      of Authorized Signatory   Signature
      of Authorized Signatory

    


     

    


    Johnny
      C.N. Lee

    By
      its
      authorized signatory

    /s/
      Johnny C.N. Lee

    


    Signature
      of Authorized Signatory
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2367

JOHN M. DICKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROY CHERRY, Superintendent; T. D. HATCHETT, Captain; L. NICHOLS, 

Sergeant; KIM BUDD, Correctional Officer; S. PIERSON, 

Correctional Officer; E. FELDER, Correctional Officer; WILLIAMS, 

Correctional Officer; SWAIN, Correctional Officer; ALLEN, 

Correctional Officer; JOHN/JANE DOE(S), Correctional Officers,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District 

Judge. (2:10-cv-00224-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

John M. Dickson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Lawrence 

Dumville, NORRIS, ST. CLAIR & LOTKIN, Virginia Beach, Virginia,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John M. Dickson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) 

complaint and his subsequent motions for extension of time to 

file a notice of appeal and for reconsideration under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 60(b). Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry 

of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an 

appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court 

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or 

reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he 

timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007).

The district court’s order denying relief on Dickson’s 

§ 1983 complaint was entered on November 2, 2010. Dickson filed 

his notice of appeal on December 6, 2010. Because Dickson 

failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an 

extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss this 

portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

With respect to the district court’s order denying 

Dickson’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of 

appeal and his motion for reconsideration, Dickson’s notices of 

appeal were timely filed. We have reviewed the record and find 

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 
3

stated by the district court. Dickson v. Cherry, No. 2:10—cv00224-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 1, 2011 & entered Feb. 2, 

2011). 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 IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
10914.

#### WINDOM *v.*THE STATE.

Where the defendant in a criminal ease moves for a continuance because of absence of witnesses, and by uneontradicted testimony shows that they are absent because he was misled by the prosecuting solicitor, who told him that he need not have his witnesses or his lawyer present at the trial, as “it would be all arranged,” the case is an exception to the rule, laid down in section 987 of the Penal Code, that it must be shown that the witnesses are not absent by the permission, directly or indirectly, of the movant.

Decided November 6, 1919.

Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Carrollton—■ Judge Eevill presiding. July 7, 1919.

*I. N. Cheney,*for plaintiff in error.

*Willis Smith, solicitor,*contra.

Broyles, C. J.

Upon the call of the case the defendant moved for a continuance thereof upon the ground of the absence of three material witnesses. Upon the hearing of the motion the defendant swore that the absent witnesses lived in the county, had been subpoenaed by him, that their testimony was material to Ms defense, that he expected to have the witnesses present at the next term of court, and that the application was not made for the purpose of delay, but to enable him to have the testimony of the absent witnesses. The defendant further set forth what he expected to prove by the witnesses, and it appears that this testimony would have been material to Ms defense. The defendant further testified that the witnesses were absent because the prosecuting solicitor had told Mm that he need not have them at the trial and not to have his lawyer present, as “it would be all arranged.” None of this evidence was denied by the solicitor. Under these peculiar circumstances we think that this ease presents an exception to the rule, as laid down in section 987 of the Penal Code, that it must be shown that the witnesses are not absent by the permission, directly or indirectly, of the movant. In our judgment the court erred in overruling the motion for a continuance, and the subsequent proceedings in the case were nugatory.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATIONS  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Delaine H. Gruber, director and president of Mineral Mountain Mining and Milling Company (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 my knowledge::



1.

This Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2.

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



Date:  June 24, 2004

_/s/Delaine H. Gruber______________________

Signature
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 23.1


             INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE


The Board of Directors
Hastings Entertainment, Inc.:

The audits referred to in our report dated March 20, 1998, except as to note 12,
which is as of June 4, 1998, included the related financial statement schedule
as of January 31, 1998, and for each of the years in the three-year period ended
January 31, 1998, included in the registration statement. The financial
statement schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statement schedule
based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial statement schedule, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We consent to the use of our reports included herein and to the reference to
our firm under the heading "Experts" in the prospectus.



KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Dallas, Texas
May 18, 1998
Exhibit 32.2

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 Siebert Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Joseph M. Ramos, Jr., in my capacity as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:

(1) the Report
filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934; and

(2) the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period
covered by the report.

|                          |  |                      
|------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|/s/ Joseph
 M. Ramos, Jr. |  | Date: March
 31, 2008
|                          |  |                      
|Joseph M.
 Ramos, Jr.     | 
|Chief
 Financial Officer  | 

A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other documents authenticating,
acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by section
906, has been provided to Siebert Financial Corp. and will be retained by
Siebert Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

---