alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pearce, Tolle & Co. et al. *v.*W. H. Burns et al.

Execution — Venditioni Exponas.

The only effect of a sale of land under a writ of venditioni, ex-ponas is that it operates to credit the judgment by the amount of the hid. .

APPEAL PROM MORGAN CIRCUIT COURT.

January 13, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The original levies gave the sheriff the right to sell the real estate taken under and by virtue of the execution first placed in his hands. The endorsement of levies on the various writs of *venditioni exponas,*was only a work of supererogation. Such acts did not invalidate the authority to sell, acquired by the levies when first made. The original sales were good, and as the property was not redeemed, they entitle appellants to deeds of conveyance from the sheriff. The levy, or rather the attempt to levy the writs of. *venditioni exponas*on appellees’ right of redemption, was, of course, of no effect; but appellants get a perfect title by the original sales, independent of their purchase at'the sale of the right of redemption. The only effect of this sale is that it operated to credit the judgment by the amounts bid. For this result the appellants themselves are responsible. The sheriff was acting for them, and they bid at his sale, presumptively with full knowledge of all the attending circumstances. They ask to be relieved against this voluntary act, wholly upon the ground that they acquired nothing *434under their purchase. It is a sufficient answer to this to say, first, that they get a complete title to the realty under the first sale; second, that appellees, by their answer, waive and surrender any right to take advantage of irregular and unauthorized proceedings upon the part of the sheriff; and third, by deed of conveyance they release and surrender to them all right or claim they may have in and to the property. We see no objection to the manner in which the power of attorney was executed. It and the conveyance are both in court subject to the control of the appellants, and they can put them to record whenever they choose to do so. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

*B. D. Lacy, for appellants.*

*Kendall, for appellees.*
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Ingo K. Kozak the Vice President Finance & Administration and CFO,certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bio-LokInternational Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, nor misleading with respect tothe period covered by this quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flow of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this quarterly report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forthe establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrantand have;
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date ofthis quarterly report (the Evaluation Date”); and
c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial data and haveidentified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses ininternal controls; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls; and
6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated inthis quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes ininternal controls or in other factors that could significantly affectinternal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regards tosignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses.        Date: March 15, 2004 **/s/ Ingo K. Kozak , VP – Finance and CFO**   Signature and Title
#### Carlton Dale WALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dean WALKER, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 01-6145.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2001.

Decided May 21, 2001.

*134Carlton Dale Wall, pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Carlton Dale Wall seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000).* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. *See Wall v. Walker,*No. CA-00-807 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 2001). 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.

*DISMISSED.*

*

 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                          868468
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                868468
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  868468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           46518
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        821950
<OTHER-SE>                      0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    868468
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                12806
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   51408
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (38602)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (38602)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (5.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             820
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,952
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,156
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,722
<PP&E>                                          49,630
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,421
<BONDS>                                          3,670
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        665
<COMMON>                                           894
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,902
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,559
<SALES>                                         64,327<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,906<F1>
<CGS>                                           41,197
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,005
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 428
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,365
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,093
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,272
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,272
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.01
<FN>
<F1>sales and total revenues include $5,928 million of excise and state gasoline
taxes
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ALLAN BUTLER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-0037-CG-B

)

R. ROBERTS, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all pleadings in this file, and there having been no

objections filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 35) is hereby

GRANTED pursuant to Rule 25(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00037-CG-B Document 43 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-QSB/A for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gary L. Dreher, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | 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 Company.

| |                                                      
| | -----------------------------------------------------
| | /s/  Gary L. Dreher                                  
| | Gary L. Dreher
Chief Executive Officer
March 20, 2003
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER and PRINCIPAL
       FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
          OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the Everest Fund, L.P.
(the "Partnership"), for the quarter ended September 30, 2011,
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter Lamoureux, President
of Everest Asset Management, Inc., the general partner of
the Everest Fund, L.P. (the "Fund"), hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	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 Fund.




      By:  /s/ Peter Lamoureux
         ----------------------
      Name: 	Peter Lamoureux
      Title: 	Director, President and
      		Treasurer

      November 14, 2011


		E-3
**Exhibit10(f)(3)**

 

**ALLTELCORPORATION**

 

**Resolutions of the Board of Directors**

**April 23, 1998**

 

**Re:  Amendments toExecutive Deferred Compensation Plan and**

**Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors**

 

 

**WHEREAS,**the Board of Directors of ALLTEL Corporation (“ALLTEL”)deems it appropriate to amend the ALLTEL Corporation Executive DeferredCompensation Plan (October 1, 1993 Restatement), as amended (the “ExecutivePlan”), and the ALLTEL Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors(October 1, 1993 Restatement), as amended (the “Directors Plan”), in the mannerspecified in these resolutions to provide for cessation of future deferralsthereunder;

 

**NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,**that, in accordance with Article IV ofthe Executive Plan, Section 1 of Article II of the Executive Plan be, and ithereby is, amended, effective as of April 23, 1998, by adding at the endthereof the following:

 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provisionof the Plan, no deferrals of Compensation shall occur under the Plan for anyYear beginning after December 31, 1998.”

 

**RESOLVED FURTHER,**that the officers of ALLTEL be, and each of themhereby is, authorized and directed, for and on behalf of ALLTEL, to communicatethe foregoing amendments to the Participants under the Executive Plan, toperform ALLTEL’s obligations under the Executive Plan, as amended hereby, andto do any and all other things necessary or appropriate to carry out thepurpose of these resolutions.

 

**RESOLVED FURTHER,**that, in accordance with Article IV of the DirectorsPlan, Section 1 of Article II of the Directors Plan be, and it hereby is,amended, effective as of April 23, 1998, by adding at the end thereof thefollowing:

 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing or any other provisionof the Plan, no deferrals of Fees shall occur under the Plan for any Yearbeginning after December 31, 1998.”

 

**RESOLVED FURTHER,**that the officers of ALLTEL be, and each of themhereby is, authorized and directed, for and on behalf of ALLTEL, to performALLTEL’s obligations under the Directors Plan, as amended hereby, and to do anyand all other things necessary or appropriate to carry out the purpose of theseresolutions.

 

----
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 478

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the rules for 

involuntary conversions of livestock sold on account of weather-related 

conditions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 29, 2003

Mr. MCINNIS (for himself, Mr. POMEROY, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. HULSHOF, 

Mr. HERGER, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Mrs. 

MUSGRAVE, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. TANCREDO, and Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 

the rules for involuntary conversions of livestock sold 

on account of weather-related conditions.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rancher HELP (Help 

5 Extend Livestock Proceeds) Act of 2003’’. 
2

•HR 478 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SPECIAL RULES FOR LIVESTOCK SOLD ON AC2 COUNT OF WEATHER-RELATED CONDITIONS. 

3 (a) RULES FOR REPLACEMENT OF INVOLUNTARILY

4 CONVERTED LIVESTOCK.—Subsection (e) of section 1033 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to involun6 tary conversions) is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘CONDITIONS.—For purposes’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘CONDITIONS.—

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes’’, and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

11 paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(2) EXTENSION OF REPLACEMENT PERIOD.—

13 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In the case of 

14 drought, flood, or other weather-related condi15 tions described in paragraph (1) which result in 

16 the area being designated as eligible for assist17 ance by the Federal Government, subsection 

18 (a)(2)(B) shall be applied with respect to any 

19 converted property by substituting ‘4 years’ for 

20 ‘2 years’. 

21 ‘‘(B) FURTHER EXTENSION BY SEC22 RETARY.—The Secretary may extend on a re23 gional basis the period for replacement under 

24 this section (after the application of subpara25 graph (A)) for such additional time as the Sec26 retary determines appropriate if the weather-
3

•HR 478 IH 

1 related conditions which resulted in such appli2 cation continue for more than 3 years.’’. 

3 (b) INCOME INCLUSION RULES.—Section 451(e) of 

4 such Code (relating to special rule for proceeds from live5 stock sold on account of drought, flood, or other weather6 related conditions) is amended by adding at the end the 

7 following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(3) SPECIAL ELECTION RULES.—If section 

9 1033(e)(2) applies to a sale or exchange of livestock 

10 described in paragraph (1), the election under para11 graph (1) shall be deemed valid if made during the 

12 replacement period described in such section.’’. 

13 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

14 this section shall apply to any taxable year with respect 

15 to which the due date (without regard to extensions) for 

16 the return is after December 31, 2002.

Æ
#### Frank Catrun *v.*Isaac Hawn.

Sheriffs and Constables — Failure to Take Proper Replevin Bond.

The evidence was held insufficient to show liability on a sheriff’s bond for failure to take a proper replevin bond.

Sheriffs and Constables — Presumption As to Sheriff’s Return.

The presumption is that the return of a sheriff is true, and in the absence of proof to the contrary such presumption will prevail.

APPEAL FROM KNOX CIRCUIT ¡COURT.

June 17, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

After Amis had abandoned SO' much of his petition as sought relief upon the ground that he had not signed, or authorized any one to sign for him the replevin bond upon which the execution issued, and in effect conceded the fact that he had once been legally bound on said bond, the contract was narrowed down to the single issue as to whether or not Hawn had failed to issue execution for more than one year and Catrun, the sheriff, was no longer a necessary or proper party to the proceeding. The injunction was evidently perpetuated because of appellee’s failure to issue execution as charged, and we are unable to discover upon what grounds the *6circuit judge based his conclusion that Catrun had failed to take a proper replevin bond. If Amis signed or authorized any one to sign for him, the bond was a proper one.

*James, for appellant.*

-, *for appellee.*

The presumption is that the return of the sheriff is true, and in the absence of all proof on the subject, that presumption should have prevailed.

Besides this appellee utterly fails to prove (even if wé concede he alleged) that damages resulted to him from’ the action of Ca-trun, admitting that the bond was not a proper one, and that his return was false.

The judgment against Catrun is reversed and the cause remanded with instruction to dismiss the original and cross-petition against him.
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  (1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-14177) pertaining to The Molex
Incorporated Stock Purchase Plan,
 (2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-38259) pertaining to The 1990 Molex
Incorporated Stock Option Plan,
 (3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-68481) pertaining to The 1998 Molex
Incorporated Stock Option Plan,
 (4)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-44652) pertaining to The 1991 Molex
Incorporated Incentive Stock Option Plan,
 (5)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-55700) pertaining to The 2000 Molex
Incorporated Long-Term Stock Plan,
 (6)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-111014) pertaining to The 2000 Molex
Incorporated Long-Term Stock Plan,
 (7)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129559) pertaining to the 2005 Molex
Employee Stock Award Plan,
 (8)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129560) pertaining to the 2005 Molex
Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
 (9)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129561) pertaining to the 2005 Molex
Incentive Stock Option Plan,
 (10)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-129562) pertaining to the Amended
and Restated 2000 Molex Long-Term Stock Plan,
 (11)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-138901) pertaining to the 2000 Molex
Incorporated Incentive Stock Option Plan, the Molex 2005 Outside Directors
Deferred compensation Plan and the Molex Deferred Compensation Plan, and
 (12)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-155603) pertaining to the 2008 Molex
Stock Incentive Plan,
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSREQUIRED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350,I, the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc.(the “Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 4, 2006(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Norbert  E. Woodhams |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Norbert E. Woodhams      |
| June 2, 2006        |

 

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 1350,I, the undersigned Principal Financial Officer of Pierre Foods, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that this Annual Report on Form 10-Kof the Company for the fiscal year ended March 4, 2006 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Joseph W. Meyers |   |
|----------------------|--------|
| Joseph W. Meyers     |
| June 2, 2006    |

 

----