alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sallie Yeager’s Adm’r. *v.*Oliver Holcombe.

Abatement and' Revival — Action Prosecuted in Name of State — Death of Relator.

Where a 'citizen is prosecuting an action in the name of the state for a change in a public road, the action will abate on his death, un*523less some other citizen voluntarily comes into court and asks to be allowed to take his place, and will not pass to his representatives and heirs.

APPEAL FROM UNION CIRCUIT COURT.

February 21, 1874.

*Ken*Chápese, *for appellant.*

*D. H. Hwghes, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

Yeager had no such interest in the proceeding pending in the Union County Court, to procure a change in a public road, as would pass upon his death to his representatives and heirs. The real party in interest was the public, and Yeager was only permitted to represent it and to test the propriety of the proposed charge, upon the condition that he would be responsible for costs in case of failure. The proceeding necessarily abated with his death, unless some other citizen would voluntarily come into court and ask to be allowed to take his place.

It was improper for the court to allow his administrator and infant heirs to be brought into court, and made responsible for the costs. The motion of the attorney to have them' brought before the court should have been overruled, and the motion of Holcombe to dismiss the proceeding after they had been summoned, should have prevailed.

The judgment of the circuit court conforms to his view of the law. It is therefore affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 15.1




August 7, 1998

The Board of Directors
Santa Fe International Corporation


We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-7070) of Santa Fe International Corporation of our report
dated July 28, 1998, relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim
financial statements of Santa Fe International Corporation included in its Form
6-K for the quarter ended June 30, 1998.


                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
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 Quarterly Report of China Broadband, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Pu Yue, Principal
Accounting Officer and Principal Financial 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Broadband, Inc. and will be retained by China Broadband, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.




November
      23, 2009
              
              
              /s/
      PuYuePuYue (Principal Accounting and
      Financial Officer)
Exhibit 10.23


Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation


          Ruddick Corporation (the “Company”) compensates each member of its Board of Directors (the “Board) who is not an employee of the Company or its subsidiaries.  Effective January 1, 2006, non-employee directors will receive $26,000 per year for services as a director, plus $1,500 for each Board meeting or committee meeting attended.  In addition to the general fees for directors described above, the Chairman of the Board, the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Board and the Chairman of the Audit Committee of the Board are paid an additional annual fee of $30,000, $30,000 and $6,000, respectively, for services as chairman of the Board or the indicated committee, as applicable.


          Non-employee directors of the Company may defer the payment of the annual fee and/or Board meeting fees, pursuant to the Company’s Director Deferral Plan (the “Deferral Plan”).  The deferred fees are converted into a number of shares of Common Stock of the Company (the “Common Stock”) with a fair market value equal to the value of the fees deferred, and the number of shares is then credited to the director’s account, along with the amount of any dividends or stock distributions.  Upon termination of service as a director or in the event of death, the balance of the director’s account will be distributed to the director or a designated beneficiary.


          Under the Company’s 1995 Comprehensive Stock Option Plan (the “1995 Plan”), the Company automatically granted each non-employee director at the time the 1995 Plan was adopted a ten-year option to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of the Common Stock on the date of the option grant.  Since that time, pursuant to the provisions of the Company’s stock option plans, the Company has automatically granted a ten-year option to purchase 10,000 shares of Common Stock to each new non-employee director upon his or her initial election as director.  These options are immediately vested, and the exercise price of these options is equal to the fair market value of the Common Stock on the date of the director’s election.  


          The Company grants additional incentive awards to its non-employee directors from time to time, at the Board’s discretion.  These incentive awards generally have taken the form of stock option grants and discretionary contributions by the Company to the Deferral Plan for the benefit of each non-employee director, however, other award types may be granted in the future at the discretion of the Board.  On November 17, 2005, the Board approved discretionary contributions by the Company to the Deferral Plan for the benefit of each non-employee director in the amount of $10,000.


          The Company also provides life insurance coverage for each non-employee director.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that have

no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of wellsettled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on

the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 95-40147

(Summary Calendar)

_______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ORLANDO GONZALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(B-94-CR-95-6)

_______________________________________________

November 24, 1995 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

A jury convic ted Orlando Gonzales of conspiracy to possess

cocaine with intent to distribute , in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A), and of aiding and abetting the

possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Gonzales was

s entenced to 288 months imprisonment, five years supervised

release, and a $100 special assessment.-2-

Gonzales appeals his conviction for aiding and abetting the

possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, arguing that there

was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. A conviction

for aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with the intent

to distribute does not require that Gonzales have actual or

constructive possession of the drugs. U nited States v. Salazar,

958 F.2d 1285, 1292 (5th Cir.)

, cert. denied

,

___ U.S.

___, 113 S.

Ct. 185, 121 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1992). The jury need only find that

Gonzales' "association and participation with the venture were in

a way calculated to bring about that venture's success." I d.

After having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that there

was sufficient evidence for a jury to make the required finding and

convict Gonzales of this crime.

AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

January 16 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk January 16 , 2019

158 512 ( 23 )

JSR FUNDING, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 158512

v COA: 344681

Oakland CC: 2018

- 163107

- AV

KRISTINA AVANT,

Defendant

- Appellant

.

_________ ____________________________ ___ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties

agreeing to the dismissal of motion for reconsideration is considered, and the motion is

DISMISSED without fees or costs to any party

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         135,926
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  348,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (111,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  5,080,021
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,790,622
<PP&E>                                       9,489,140
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,833,111)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,626,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,478,474
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,789,055
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,626,396
<SALES>                                      1,230,405
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,230,405
<CGS>                                          528,741
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  678,432
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             122,507
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (95,962)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (95,962)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (95,962)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
#### Pennsylvania & Delaware Oil Co., Plaintiff, *v.*A. Klifstein *&*Co., Defendant.

(City Court of the City of New York, Trial Term,

June, 1919.)

Exceptions — Code Civ. Pro. § rooo.

The only exceptions which can be ordered heard at the Appel.late Division in the first instance (Code Civ. Pro., § 1000) are those of the moving party.

Motion that plaintiff’s exceptions upon its affirmative case be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division.

*617Rounds, Hatch, Dillingham & Debevoise, for plaintiff.

John J. Schwartz, for defendant.

La Fetra, J.

This is a motion by defendant that plaintiff’s exceptions upon its affirmative ease, resulting in a dismissal of the complaint, be heard in the first instance by the Appellate Division. Although the direction was made by me in writing at the conclusion of the trial, only the exceptions of the party maldng the motion can be thus ordered to be heard. Code Civ. Pro. § 1000; 15 Bench *&*Bar, 65. Accordingly, upon reconsideration, the motion is denied.

Motion denied.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive OfficerPursuant to Section 906
of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of Medtronic, Inc. for the fiscal year ended April 25,
2008, the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Medtronic, Inc., for purposes of 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, as amended; and                       
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (2) | The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Medtronic, Inc.

Date: June 24, 2008

/s/ William A. Hawkins  William A. HawkinsPresident and Chief Executive Officer


---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Statement of Income and the Consolidated Statement of Financial
Position and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          41,520
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  426,975
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,274
<INVENTORY>                                     38,611
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               682,044
<PP&E>                                       3,802,899
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,375,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,657,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          791,542
<BONDS>                                      1,223,509
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          305,840
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           680
<OTHER-SE>                                     851,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,657,739
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               788,761
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  662,895
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,021)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                11,059
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,712
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                117,166
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,397
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             81,769
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    81,769
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit No. 12.

Questar Gas Company  Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

|                                                           |  | Year ended December 31,
|---------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|
|
|Earnings                                                   |  |                        
|Income before income taxes                                 |  | $                      
|Plus debt expense                                          |  |                        
|Plus allowance for borrowed funds used during construction |  |                        
|Plus interest portion of rental expense                    |  |                        
|                                                           |  |                        
|                                                           |  | $                      
|                                                           |  |                        
|Fixed Charges                                              |  |                        
|Debt expense                                               |  | $                      
|Plus allowance for borrowed funds used during construction |  |                        
|Plus interest portion of rental expense                    |  |                        
|                                                           |  |                        
|                                                           |  | $                      
|                                                           |  |                        
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges(1)                      |  |                        

---

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1412
CLIFF MORRISS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; LG&E POWER SERVICES, LLC, Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Administrative Review Board. (05-047) Submitted: April 14, 2008 Decided: May 2, 2008 Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carolyn P. Carpenter, CARPENTER LAW FIRM, Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Steven J. Mandel, Associate Solicitor, Paul L. Frieden, Paula Wright Coleman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Erin M. Sine, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Cliff Morriss seeks review of the Administrative Review Board’s decision and order dismissing his complaint of retaliatory discharge filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for the reasons stated by the Board. Morriss v. United States Dep’t of Labor , No. 05-047 (A.R.B. Feb. 28, 2007). 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.

PETITION DENIED
stainable 

nufacturing 

ing on a 

 Workshop held at 

hersburg, MD 

13-16, 2009 

jay Srinivasan 

IST 

Workshop on Advanced Manufacturing 

ersburg, MD 

-4, 2009 
siness has spoken ... 

2 
siness has spoken ... 

3 
But challenges remain in 

ecution 

What are the supporting 

 Metrics  Standards  Infrastructure 

To address these issues, NIST 

rganized a workshop in 

mid-October, 2009. 

4 
de Participation 

Industry 

GM, Ford, GE, 

Xerox, Lockheed 

Martin, Rockwell 

Automation, P&G, 

Siemens, Harbec 

Plastics, Masco, 

URS 

Academia 

Stanford, 

Purdue, 

Georgia Tech, 

RIT, 

U of Kentucky, 

Portland State U., 

Texas Tech 

Software 

Vendors 

Dassualt Systems, 

Siemens PLM, 

PTC 

Gov. / NGOs 

DOC, NIST, NASA, 

NSF 

WRI, NCMS, 

CAMDUS, ANSI, NACFAM, ASTM 

5 
dustry Panel Speaks 

Sustainability should start at the top. Yet, bottom-up 

olutions are very useful, powerful, and necessary. 

Educating supplier on sustainability is important, and is 

 challenge. 

Regulations drive a lot of engineering action – often, 

on-compliance is the fear that drives these actions. 

Branding is very important for business. Many 

ompanies are positioning themselves at the forefront 

f sustainability movement to protect and/or enhance 

heir brands. 

s sustainability an opportunity or cost? There is no 

hoice but to treat it as an opportunity. 

6 
dustrial Challenges 

They are unable to accurately measure economic, 

societal, and environmental impacts and costs of their products during the entire life cycle and across their supply chain. 

Full life cycle analysis (LCA) of products requires 

new methods to analyze, integrate, and aggregate information across hierarchical levels, organizational entities, and supply chain participants. 

They lack neutral and trusted programs to 

demonstrate, deploy, and accredit new sustainable manufacturing practices, guidelines and methods. 

7 
or more information ... 

Our web site 

www.nist.gov/mel/msid

contains most of the presentations made at the workshop. A workshop report will be published and freely available at this site. 

8
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ, dba Starlight 

Consulting Services, STARLIGHT 

ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES, INC., 

STARLIGHT MUSIC MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, 

UNKNOWN STATE OF CALIFORNIA

GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL, Servicing the State 

Agencies-Franchise Tax Board,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2024-1964

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 5:17-cv-02886-BLF, 

Judge Beth Labson Freeman.

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

In 2017, Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez brought suit 

against appellees in the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California alleging, among other 

things, various civil rights and antitrust violations and 

Case: 24-1964 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2024
2 CALDERON LOPEZ v. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

seeking $200,000 in damages. On November 1, 2018, the

district court dismissed the case for failure to pay the filing 

fee. On June 13, 2024, Mr. Calderon Lopez filed a notice of 

appeal from a decision entered “11/01/2018” in the district 

court action. The notice of appeal was transmitted to this 

court, and it appears an appeal from the same district court 

decision is also pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Calderon-Lopez v. Off. of 

the Cal. Sec’y of State, No. 24-3808 (9th Cir. June 20, 2024).

As this court has informed Mr. Calderon Lopez,1 our 

jurisdiction to review district court decisions is generally 

limited to cases involving the patent laws, see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1); civil actions on review to the district court 

from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, see

§ 1295(a)(4)(C); and cases involving certain damages 

claims against the United States “not exceeding $10,000 in 

amount,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2). 

Mr. Calderon Lopez’s case does not fall within that jurisdiction. We conclude that dismissal, rather than transfer, 

is appropriate at least because an appeal from the same 

district court action is also pending in the Ninth Circuit. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 41, 1291, 1294.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

1 See In re Calderon Lopez, Appeal No. 2023-133, 

ECF No. 23 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2023); Calderon Lopez v. 

O’Malley, Appeal No. 2024-1698, ECF No. 7 (Fed. Cir. 

Apr. 24, 2024); Calderon Lopez v. United States, Appeal No. 

2024-1947, ECF No. 4 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2024).

Case: 24-1964 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2024
CALDERON LOPEZ v. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 3

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

July 23, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 24-1964 Document: 4 Page: 3 Filed: 07/23/2024