alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Patricia Lowe , Appellant

No. 06

- 20

- 00043

- CV v.

Brookshire Grocery Company , Appellee Appeal from the 62nd District Court of Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No.

CV43829 ). Memorandu m Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss

, Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the summary judgment of

the court below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Patricia Lowe , pay all costs incurred by reason of this

appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 27, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
EXHIBIT (23)



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT











The Board of Directors
Paul Mueller Company

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-88188 and No. 333-78321) on Form S-8 of Paul Mueller Company of our report dated February 18, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Paul Mueller Company and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and the related consolidated statement of income, shareholders' investment, and cash flows for the year then ended and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Paul Mueller Company.

KPMG LLP

/S/   KPMG LLP

Kansas City, Missouri
March 24, 2003

130

==========================================================================
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARRYL RIGGINS, # 184051, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 08-00157-KD-B

ROBERT BARNES, M.D., et al., :

Defendant. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the issue

raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and dated January 5, 2010, is ADOPTED as the opinion of

this Court with the following amendment. 

The Court will hold in abeyance the dismissal of this action as follows: if the Plaintiff pays

the full filing fee of $350.00 by February 26, 2010 this action will not be dismissed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(g). Otherwise, this case will be DISMISSED on March 1, 2010 without further

order of the Court.

DONE and ORDERED this the 4th day of February 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00157-KD-B Document 38 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm  The Board of Directors MOCON, Inc.:  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-58789, 333-90116 and 333-134413) on Form S-8 of MOCON, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 30, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of MOCON, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows and the related financial statement schedule for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, which report appears in the December 31, 2010, annual report on Form 10-K of MOCON, Inc. and subsidiaries.   /s/ KPMG LLPMinneapolis, MinnesotaMarch 30, 2011
#### Hyman C. Knowlton v. Zelpha E. Amy, Calvin B. Amy and Merritt H. Lewis.

*Fraud in exchange of real estate.*

A bill was filed to set aside an exchange of real estate for fraud in representing defendant’s lot to be unencumbered, and the main defence was that complainant’s land was also encumbered. Defendant had sold the land obtained on the trade to a purchaser who had connived in the fraud. It appeared that the encumbrance on complainant’s land was a mortgage which covered some adjacent property, and that the latter had been sold subject to the entire mortgage; and it was not shown that this mortgage had been concealed. *Held,*proper to rescind the bargain, and that, under the prayer for cancellation and general relief, it was proper to decree that conveyances be made to restore the title.

Appeal from Eaton.

Submitted Oct. 19.

Decided Oct. 26.

Bill to set aside deed. Defendant Lewis appeals.

Affirmed.

*John Wood*and *Clement If. Smith*for complainant.

*Henry A. Shaw*for defendants

*205Campbell, J.

The bill in this case was filed to set aside an exchange of property for fraud; and the decree below was in favor of complainant.

In April, 1879, complainant bargained with defendant Zelpha Amy to exchange his lot in Eaton Rapids for her eighty-acre lot on section 21, town 1 north of range 8 west, in Eaton county, and to pay her besides $1050 properly secured. After the papers were exchanged he discovered that the title which she had represented as clear was encumbered by a mortgage for $1025 to one Anna Cochran, which is unpaid and in foreclosure. The bill claims a rescission for fraud, and brings in Lewis to whom she conveyed the lot, as a purchaser in bad faith.

The case is fully made out by the proofs, and the only defence which has any importance is that complainant’s lot was also mortgaged.

The testimony shows that there is a mortgage which covers this and an adjacent lot, but that the owner of that lot purchased subject to the entire mortgage. There is some conflict concerning the value of that parcel. The testimony does not indicate that complainant made any fraudulent concealment of this mortgage, while on the other hand there was positive fraud and artifice in mutilating the abstract of defendant’s land, and Lewis appears to have known this and had some part in making or concealing the deception.

*We*think equity required the rescission of the bargáin, and that the complainant had placed defendants clearly in the wrong so that he was entitled to relief. The prayer for cancellation and for general relief made the decree for conveyances to restore the title entirely proper under the pleadings.

The decree should be affirmed with costs against Lewis, the appellant.

The other Justices concurred.
Article Ref: D-020

Weights and Measures Connection, Vol. 4, Issue 6 Page 1

September 26, 2013

Retail Motor Fuel Device Training Video 

Byline: G. Diane Lee

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) is

nearing completion of a Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser (RMFD) training video. The video shows a weights 

and measures official performing the minimum tests of a RMFD at a typical gas station and includes the 

following tests: 

• checking security seals on test measures and provers, 

• wetting and draining test measures and provers,

• normal and slow flow tests,

• reading the meniscus, and

• the anti-drain test.

The tests demonstrated in the video are performed using both hand held test measures and provers. 

The video will be posted on the OWM website and will also be used in webinars and other instructor led 

RMFD training. One of the webinars planned for 2014, is a one-hour webinar on “Draining Test 

Measures and Provers.” Participants interested in this webinar must request training using the NIST, 

Office of Weights and Measures Contacts System. After you receive notice that your request has been 

received, you will be notified of specific dates for this training. Instruction for requesting training in our

Contacts System is available at: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/upload/how-to-request-training1.pdf. 

For additional information concerning the webinar “Draining Test Measures and Provers” or other RMFD 

training, please contact G. Diane Lee by phone at 301-975-4405 or by email at diane.lee@nist.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. F R A N C IS C O F L O R E S -B A B IC H I, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 10345 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 2 7 4 - D CB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona D a vi d C . B ury , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r25, 2011 ** B efo re: T R O T T , G O U L D , an dR A W L IN S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F ranci sc o F l ores -B abi chi appeal s f rom the 77 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f ol l ow i ng r e m and f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291, a n dw e a f

f i rm. 

# FI LED OC T 26 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 10345 2 F lo r e s - B ab ic h i c o n te n d s th a t h is s e n te n c e is s u b s tan tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le un der U ni ted States v. A m ez cua-V asqu ez , 567 F . 3d 1050 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , gi ve n the st al enes s of hi s pri or conv i ct i on , and h i s a l l eged cul turalas si m i l at i on . T he re cord r e f le c ts th a t th e s e n te n c e im p o s e dis s u b s tan tiv e lyr e a s o n ab le in lig h t o f th e to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s tan c e s a n dth e s e n te n c in g f a c to r s s e t f

o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7); U ni ted States v. V ale nc i a- B arragan , 608 F . 3d 1103, 1108- 09 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not abuse i t s di sc re t i on i n app l yi ng 16 -l evelenhancem entw here § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors supp ort ed w i thi n-G ui del i nes s ent ence ) . AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 23





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





Board of Directors



Monmouth Capital Corporation:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-3D (No. 333-123204) of Monmouth Capital Corporation of our report dated February 25, 2005, related to the consolidated balance sheets of Monmouth Capital Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, which report is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Monmouth Capital Corporation , and our report dated February 25, 2005 related to the consolidated financial statements, which report is included in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Monmouth Capital Corporation.













Cowan and Gunteski & Co., P.A.



Toms River, New Jersey





March 10, 2005
#### James R. BRITT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-7451.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 27, 2001.

Decided May 3, 2001.

*92James R. Britt, pro se.

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

James Britt appeals the district court’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 district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Britt’s motion for a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *Britt v. Angelone,*No. CA-00-1195-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 19, 2000). 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.*
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71497-71498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28333]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #14190 and #14191]


Louisiana Disaster #LA-00053

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Louisiana dated 11/18/2014.
    Incident: Severe Weather and Tornadoes.
    Incident Period: 10/13/2014.
    Effective Date: 11/18/2014.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/20/2015.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/18/2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:
Primary Counties: Ouachita.
Contiguous Counties:
Louisiana: Caldwell; Jackson; Lincoln; Morehouse; Richland; Union.
    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      4.125

[[Page 71498]]

 
  Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      2.063
  Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      6.000
  Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      4.000
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.625
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.625
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.625
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14190B 
and for economic injury is 141910.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is LOUISIANA.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)


    Dated: November 18, 2014.
Maria Contreras-Sweet,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-28333 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Marilyn Kelly

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 19, 2006 

t0712 

Order 

 

July 19, 2006 

130950 & (16) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130950 

 COA: 267703 

Eaton CC: 05-020202-FC 

ROBERT ARNOLD HIRSCHI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 24, 2006 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

remand is also considered, and it is DENIED.
**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**

| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                      |                                                               |                                                     |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Dated:                June 28, 2007  | By:                                                      | /s/ Tamala                L.                McComic |
|                                      | Chief                Financial Officer, Vice President, Treasurer, |
|                                      | and                  Assistant Secretary                           |

----
#### J. H. James et al. *v.*J. M. James. J. M. James *v.*J. H. James., et al.

Pleading — Presumption—Change of Position as Parties.

Where it does not appear that the names of certain plaintiffs were stricken out and inserted as defendants by any ,one than themselves, it must be presumed that the change of their position on the record •was made with their consent. ,

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT .COURT.

October 21, 1873.

*223
      *Holt, for appellants.*

*Turner, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

As to the first supposed error, that Hill and wife were not parties before the court, it is deemed sufficient to say that as the order striking out their names as plaintiffs and making them defendants does not appear to have been made at the instance of any one else than themselves as co-plaintiffs, we must presume the change in their position on the record was made with their assent; and they did not thereby cease to be parties before the court.

The private settlement between J. M. and D. L. James, of May 1, 1861, as well as all the other evidence on which the commissioner and the court based their adjustment of the administrator’s accounts, seems to have been competent and properly considered, except the two ex parte county court settlements, which were made during the pendency of the suit, when the jurisdiction of the circuit court operated to «exclude that of the county court to make the settlements, which were therefore incompetent as evidence to sustain either the charges or credits allowed in the commissioner’s report and judgment. As this must materially affect the judgment prejudicially to the appellants, the heirs of D. L. James, the judgment must, for that reason, be reversed. We perceive no other available errors in the judgment except as to the sums adjudged to Turner and Apperson, as to which there was no sufficient pleading.

Wherefore the judgment is, for the reasons indicated, reversed on both appeals and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.'
Form of Amendment to Stock Option Agreements



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENTS 
  
 This Amendment is entered into as of
                    , 2005, by and between Greater Bay Bancorp and the undersigned Optionee under the Greater Bay Bancorp 1996 Stock Option
Plan, as amended and restated (the “Plan”). Capitialized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Plan. 
  
 Pursuant to the provisions of the Plan, Greater Bay Bancorp and Optionee agree that each of the Stock Option Agreements listed on Exhibit A hereto (the
“Agreements”) shall be amended in the following respects: 
  
 1. Notwithstanding the “Right to Exercise” schedules set forth in the Agreements, on the date of the Executive Subcommittee of the Compensation Committee’s decision as indicated on the attached Exhibit A, each of the Options
granted under the Agreements shall be fully vested and exercisable as to all Shares subject to such Option for the remaining term of such Option in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan and the applicable Agreement.

  
 2. Except as expressly set forth herein, Shares issued
pursuant to the exercise of an Option prior to the earliest date on which the Option would have become exercisable without regard to the amendment set forth in Section 1 above may not be sold, exchanged or otherwise transferred by Optionee
prior to the earliest date on which the Option would have become exercisable without regard to the amendment set forth in Section 1 above. 
  
 3. The restriction on sale, exchange and other transfer set forth in Section 2 above shall lapse and shall be of no further force or effect upon the
earliest occurrence of (a) a Change in Control, (b) the death, Total and Permanent Disability, or Retirement of Optionee, or (c) the Company’s involuntary termination of Optionee’s status as an Employee without
“cause” (as defined in the applicable Agreement). 
  
 4.
The share certificates issued with respect to any Shares to which the restriction on sale, exchange and other transfer set forth in Section 2 above is applicable shall contain the following legend: 
  
 THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE ARE SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS ON SALE, EXCHANGE
AND OTHER TRANSFER AS SET FORTH IN AN AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ISSUER AND THE HOLDER OF THESE SHARES, A COPY OF WHICH MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF THE ISSUER. 
  
 5. The undersigned Optionee acknowledges that he or she has received the
notice dated November 4, 2005, regarding accelerated vesting of underwater stock options, has been given the opportunity to review the stock option acceleration program with his or her personal tax and financial advisors, understands the tax
and financial consequences of entering into this Amendment, and has elected to participate in the stock option acceleration program. 
  

							
	OPTIONEE	 	GREATER BAY BANCORP
				
	Signature:	 	  

	 	By:	 	  


	Print Name:	 	  

	 	Title:	 	  










 EXHIBIT A 
  

SCHEDULE OF STOCK OPTION GRANT AGREEMENTS 
 WITH ACCLERATED VESTING 
 As of
                    , 2005