alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### E. P. King *v.*Thos. Welch's Adm'r.

Judicial Sales — Insufficient Description.

A description of property in the petition and mortgage attached thereto as an exhibit in a proceeding to sell, as being property situated on Main Street dn a named town, is not sufficient to support a judgment.

*386APPEAL PROM LINCOLN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 20, 1873.

*Bradley, for appellant.*

*M. C. Saufley, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

In the petition, the real estate sought to be'sold is described as being on Main street, in the town of Crab Orchard. The mortgage, however, is referred to, and made a part of the petition; but the description therein given is identical with that in the petition, and the judgment pursues the description given in the petition and mortgage. So the master, in attempting to execute the judgment, would not know from anything that he could find in the pleadings or exhibit, or both, what real estate he was ordered to sell, but would be compelled to resort to other means of information to enable him to locate the property.

A failure to describe the property in the pleadings, in such; a way as would enable the master to identify it without a resort to any other means of information, musj be fatal to the judgment. The petition and judgment should describe it by its abuttals; and upon the return of the cause it will be proper, by amended pleadings, to bring the trustee before the court.

■Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to set aside the sale, for further proceedings consistent herewith,
move eiflip 0
move eicancel 0
move efflip 0
move efcancel 0
move eiguide 0
move efguide 0
move hsample 0
move vsample 0
device destroy MonoFlipper1
device destroy MonoFlipper2
device destroy AnalyzerFlipper1
device destroy AnalyzerFlipper2
device destroy SampleField1
device destroy SampleField2
device destroy SampleField3
device destroy MonoGuide
device destroy AnalyzerGuide
IFClose He3nmr
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE FORM 10-KSB
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             349
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      957
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,050
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,386
<PP&E>                                           3,247
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,099
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           369
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,779
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,248
<SALES>                                          9,939
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,939
<CGS>                                            6,745
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,552
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  81
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    561
<INCOME-TAX>                                       257
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                304
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        






</TABLE>
exv10w35w1



 







Exhibit 10.35.1









	 	 	 
	 

	 	BUSINESS OBJECTS SA
	 

	 	Mr. John Schwarz
	 

	 	157-159 rue Anatole France
	

	 	 
	 

	 	92300 Levallois-Perret
	 
	 

	 	Puteaux, December 2nd, 2005






AMENDMENT LETTER




Dear Sir,




We make reference to the credit agreement (hereafter called “the credit agreement”) between
BUSINESS OBJECTS SA, having its registered office at 157 – 159 rue Anatole France, 92300
Levallois-Perret, with its sole identification number 379 821 994 RCS Nanterre and SOCIETE GENERALE
SA, having its registered office at 29 boulevard Haussmann, 75009 Paris, with its sole
identification number 552 120 222 RCS Paris, made in Levallois-Perret on December 3rd, 2004 for an
amount of 100.000.000 EUR (one hundred million euros).



As commonly agreed between BUSINESS OBJECTS, SA and SOCIETE GENERALE, we hereby temporarily extend
the maturity date of the credit facility from December 2nd, 2005 to January
16th, 2006 and revise the commitment fee from 0,15% to 0,10% p.a. as of December
2nd, 2005.



All other terms and conditions of the credit agreement remain unchanged.



This amendment letter is submitted to French law and to the jurisdiction of the courts in Paris.



We kindly ask you to acknowledge the temporary extension as proposed.



Yours sincerely,




	 	 	 
	For SOCIETE GENERALE SA

	 	For BUSINESS OBJECTS SA
	Mr.
Gérard BARGER

	 	Mr. John Schwarz
	Deputy Manager of

	 	CEO of BUSINESS OBJECTS
	La
Défense Enterprises Branch
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Mr. Gerard BARGER

	 	/s/ Mr. John Schwarz
	 

	 	 





In 2 Copies




[LETTERHEAD]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARWIN KNIGHT (AIS # 194598), :

Plaintiff, :

v. : CIVIL ACTION 08-0301-KD-C

ALLEN LANG, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

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

raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection

is made, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

dated January 25, 2010 is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 

It is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of February 2010. 

 /s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:08-cv-00301-KD-C Document 24 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A)
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
(B)
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,022
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     11,142
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,905
<PP&E>                                          38,720
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,071
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,827
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         14
<COMMON>                                         5,664
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,869
<SALES>                                        107,116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               107,116
<CGS>                                           92,151
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   455
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,507
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,305)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,103)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,305)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,202)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12


                CALCULATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                   (In Thousands of Dollars, Except for Ratios)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      2002        2001       2000        1999       1998
                                                                    --------    --------   --------    --------   --------
<S>                                                                 <C>         <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>
Income/(loss) from continuing operations before income tax benefit  $    734    $ (4,979)  $(19,060)   $ (2,403)  $ (5,798)

Add Fixed Charges:
       Interest expense                                               12,679      12,763     14,086      11,712      1,649
       Amortization of financing costs                                   528         571        900         620        113
                                                                    ---------   --------   --------    --------   --------
                        Total income (loss) as defined              $ 13,941    $  8,355   $ (4,074)   $  9,929   $ (4,036)
                                                                    =========   ========   ========    ========   ========

Fixed Charges:
       Interest expense                                             $ 12,679    $ 12,763   $ 14,086    $ 11,712   $  1,649
       Capitalized interest                                               --          --         --         203         59
       Amortization of financing costs                                   528         571        900         620        113
                                                                    --------    --------   --------    --------   --------
                        Total fixed charges                         $ 13,207    $ 13,334   $ 14,986    $ 12,535   $  1,821
                                                                    ========    ========   ========    ========   ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                      1.06        0.63      (0.27)       0.79      (2.22)




Additional income required to meet a 1.0 ratio:                     $     --    $  4,979   $ 19,060    $  2,606   $  5,857
</TABLE>
10893.

#### Day *v.*Bank of Sparks.

Decided December 16, 1919.

Affidavit of illegality; from city court of Nashville—Judge Lovett. August 33, 1919.

The affidavit of illegality was interposed by Mrs. H. A. Day in March, 1918, to an execution based on a judgment rendered against *629her and Ed. Courson in favor of the Bank of Sparks in the city court of Nashville on February-38, 1918. The grounds of the affidavit were: This defendant has never had her day in court, has never been served with a copy of said original suit, had no notice of the pendency of the suit until after judgment, did not waive service, and did not appear and plead to the suit. She traverses the return of the deputy sheriff, J. M. Studstill, “made on December 38th, 1918 [?],” and shows that said return is incorrect and untrue; and she asks that said officer be made a party to this action, for these reasons. Defendant shows that she had a good and valid defense to said suit, to wit: She at the time of the signing of “said note” was married, and she was influenced to sign the same by her husband, whose debt the signing of the note paid; it was not her debt, and she had no interest in the same; she did not get one cent from the signing of said note, and all the proceeds of the same went to her husband. The property levied on was not in any way part of the consideration for the signing of said note. She would have appeared and pleaded to the merits of the suit had she known before that it was pending against her, and she could have readily shown that she was a surety on said note, which was in reality a debt of her husband. A motion to dismiss the affidavit of illegality was sustained, on the ground that it was insufficient in law.

*628Smith, J.

The affidavit of illegality in this case contained all the material allegations required by law, and therefore the court erred in dismissing it.

*Judgment reversed.*

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

*629
      *Story &*Story, for plaintiff in error,

cited: Park’s Cgde, §§ 5305-7, 5311, and annotations.

TF. *R.*Smith, contra,

cited: 59 *Ga.*467; 14 *Ga. App.*790; 15 *Ga. App.*162; 49 *Ga.*579; 55 *Ga.*677; 101 *Ga.*763; 63 *Ga.*481-3; 99 *Ga.*145.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY LYLE TARKINGTON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-16098

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01021-DOC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2010** 

Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Anthony Lyle Tarkington, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from

the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

constitutional violations arising from a prison riot. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

MAR 29 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DS/Research 2 09-16098

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.

2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Tarkington did not

allege facts sufficient to show that the defendants deprived him of a constitutional

or federal right. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (holding that a

plaintiff alleging deliberate indifference to safety must show that a prison official

knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to safety); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S.

312, 320-21 (1986) (explaining that a plaintiff alleging excessive force must show

that a prison official acted maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of

causing harm, rather than in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline);

Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9 (1976) (stating that prisoners have no

liberty interest in a particular security classification).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by severing Granvil Bell III

from the action and requiring Tarkington to file an amended complaint solely on

his own behalf. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1297 (9th Cir.

2000) (stating that district courts have broad discretion regarding severance).

Tarkington’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Version 1 / Date of Issue: 10.29.15 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

OSAC Research Needs Assessment Form

Title of research need:

Keywords:

Submitting subcommittee(s): Date Approved:

(If SAC review identifies additional subcommittees, add them to the box above.)

Background information:

1. Description of research need:

2. Key bibliographic references relating to this research need:

3a. In what ways would the research results improve current laboratory capabilities?

1. A literature review of relevant studies [scientific, medical, academic, and professional] 

regarding the physical stability of the facial features of adults detailed within the current 

Physical Stability of Facial Features of Adults document. 

2. In addition to the literature review, the conclusions reached based on relevant research 

should be presented to the subcommittee in layman’s terms for incorporation into the 

document. 

To be developed by researchers after consultation with the subcommittee. 

The research would provide a scientific foundation on which to base informed conclusions by facial 

comparison experts using the Physical Stability of Facial Features of Adults document. 

It would also be a valuable addition to training programs for facial image examiners, which stands 

to improve their overall efficiency and accuracy.

Validation of the “Physical Stability of Facial Features of Adults” 

document 

Facial Features, Physical Stability, Aging

Facial Identification 01/29/16
Version 1 / Date of Issue: 10.29.15 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

3b. In what ways would the research results improve understanding of the scientific basis for the 

subcommittee(s)?

3c. In what ways would the research results improve services to the criminal justice system?

4. Status assessment (I, II, III, or IV): 

This research need has been identified by one or more subcommittees of OSAC and is being provided as an 

informational resource to the community.

Major gap 

in current 

knowledge

Minor gap 

in current 

knowledge

No or limited

current research 

is being 

conducted

I III

Existing current 

research is being 

conducted

II IV

This research would validate or refute the opinions of the authors of the Physical Stability of Facial 

Features of Adults document, provide reference documentation, and allow for appropriate 

revisions based on scientific data. 

This research would add accuracy, objectivity, and validity to expert testimony in the field of facial 

identification.

II
Version 1 / Date of Issue: 10.29.15 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

// Approval date:

(Approval is by majority vote of subcommittee. Once approved, forward to SAC.)

1. Does the SAC agree with the research need? Yes ⃝ No ⃝ 

2. Does the SAC agree with the status assessment? Yes ⃝ No ⃝

If no, what is the status assessment of the SAC:

Approval date:

(Approval is by majority vote of SAC. Once approved, forward to NIST for posting.)

29Jan2016 Subcommittee

SAC

06/15/16
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 18

- 00542

- CV

In re Gary E. Prust

S. P., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY NO. 20698, THE HONOR ABLE CHERYLL MABRAY, JUD GE PRESIDING

O R D E R T O S H O W C A U S E

PER CURIAM

This is a contempt proceeding ancillary to the appeal of S. P . The subject of this

proceeding is Gary E. Prust , appellant’s attorney.

Appellant filed her notice of a ppeal on August 8, 2018 , and her brief was due

September 17, 2018 . On September 24, 2018

, we ordered counsel to file appellant’s brief no

later than October 15, 2018 . To date, appellant’s brief has not been filed.

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Gary E. Prust shall appear in person before

this Court on Wednesday, November 14, 2018 , at 1:30 p.m. , in the Third Court of Appeals

courtroom, located on the first floor of the Price Daniel, Sr. Building, 209 West 14th Street, in

Austin, Travis County, Tex as, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and have2

sanctions imposed for his failure to obey our September 24, 2018 order. This order to show

cause will be withdrawn and Prust will be relieved of his obligation to appear before this Court

as ordered above if the Clerk of this Court receives appellant’s brief on or b efore November 12,

2018.

It is ordered on October 23, 2018.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Bourland
Version 1 / Date of Issue: 10.29.15 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

OSAC Research Needs Assessment Form

Title of research need:

Keywords:

Submitting subcommittee(s): Date Approved:

(If SAC review identifies additional subcommittees, add them to the box above.)

Background information:

1. Description of research need:

2. Key bibliographic references relating to this research need:

3a. In what ways would the research results improve current laboratory capabilities?

Scientific study of the validity of utilizing hash computations on digitally stored information and 

their viability for use in authentication processes.

Uniqueness probability

NIST MD5 Standard

NIST SHA-1 Standard

NIST – NSRL Hashing algorithms and tests (zip) (2000/06/12) 

NIST – NSRL White paper on Hash Algorithms Selection (2000/06/30)

The results would provide scientific validity studies to support the applicability of utilizing hash 

value comparisons to determine uniqueness, or known identification or evidence modification 

confirmation. (protection/security?) It would supply the scientific validity that does not currently 

exist in a citable form. 

Scientific Analysis of Hash Authentications

Hash, MD5, SHA, digital forensic

Digital Evidence 2/9/16
Version 1 / Date of Issue: 10.29.15 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

3b. In what ways would the research results improve understanding of the scientific basis for the 

subcommittee(s)?

3c. In what ways would the research results improve services to the criminal justice system?

4. Status assessment (I, II, III, or IV): 

This research need has been identified by one or more subcommittees of OSAC and is being provided as an 

informational resource to the community.

Major gap 

in current 

knowledge

Minor gap 

in current 

knowledge

No or limited

current research 

is being 

conducted

I III

Existing current 

research is being 

conducted

II IV

The results would have a huge impact to the understanding and acceptance of an evidence 

protection and identification technique that currently is not supported by much scientific proof. It 

would provide confirmation of the validity of the technique and provide documented citable 

materials where little currently exists.

It would have a huge positive impact on the acceptance of what is the foundation of most digital 

forensic examinations by providing the scientific validity and documentation to support the 

foundational process of hashing. 

I
Version 1 / Date of Issue: 10.29.15 / Issuing Authority: Forensic Science Standards Board (FSSB)

// Approval date:

(Approval is by majority vote of subcommittee. Once approved, forward to SAC.)

1. Does the SAC agree with the research need? Yes ⃝ No ⃝ 

2. Does the SAC agree with the status assessment? Yes ⃝ No ⃝

If no, what is the status assessment of the SAC:

Approval date:

(Approval is by majority vote of SAC. Once approved, forward to NIST for posting.)

2/9/16 Subcommittee

SAC

6/15/16