alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



exhibit 4.a.1
 [Conformed Copy]
 
 ANR Pipeline Company
 and
 Manufacturers Bank, N.A., Trustee
 
 INDENTURE
Dated as of May 13, 1991
 and
 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE
Dated as of November 4, 1991
 
 9 5 8 % Debentures due November 1, 2021




---



##### 



ANR Pipeline Company
 and
 Manufacturers Bank, N.A., Trustee
 
 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE
Dated as of November 4, 1991
 to
 INDENTURE
Dated as of May 13, 1991
 
 $300,000,00095/8% Debentures due November 1, 2021




---



##### 



5 8
 ARTICLE ONE
  Terms of Securities To Be Issued.
 5 8




---



##### 



Form of the Debentures
  ARTICLE TWO
  Interest Payment Dates
 5 8
  ARTICLE THREE
 REDEMPTION
 No Redemption Provisions




---



##### 



ARTICLE FOUR
  Definitions.
  Governing Law.
  Successors.
  Duplicate Originals.




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  ANR PIPELINE COMPANY[SEAL]By:
    
    /s/ JEFFREY A. CONNELLYJeffrey A. ConnellyExecutive Vice Presidentand Treasurer
  By:
    
    /s/ PAULETTA P. COHNPauletta P. CohnAssistant Secretary
 MANUFACTURERS BANK, N.A.[SEAL]By:
    
    /s/ ROBERT A. WRIGHT, IIIRobert A. Wright, IIITrust Officer
  By:
    
    /s/ SUSAN E. TAYLORSusan E. TaylorSecond Vice Presidentand Trust Officer




---



##### 



5 8
 Rate of Interest
    
    Maturity Date
    
    Original Issue Date95/8%
    
    November 1, 2021
    
    November 4, 1991




---



##### 



provided, however,
    ANR PIPELINE COMPANYBy:Name:Title:
  By:Name:Title:




---



##### 



TRUSTEES CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
 5 8
 MANUFACTURERS BANK, N.A.,as TrusteeBy:Authorized Signature
  5 8
  5 8




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



A-9
 ASSIGNMENT FORM
 name of Security
 name of Security
 
 
 
 (Print or type name, address and zip code and
 social security or tax ID number of assignees)
 name of Security
 Dated:
    
    
    
    Signed:(Sign exactly as name appears onthe other side of this [name of Security])
 Signature Guarantee:
 Notice
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23





INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
2-74613 on Form S-16, No.  33-66474 on Form S-8, and No. 333-02271 on Form S-3
of Mobile Gas Service Corporation (the "Company") of our report dated November
7, 1996, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company  for the
year ended September 30, 1996.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
December 20, 1996
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Magnitude  Information Systems,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the
"Form 10-QSB"),  I, Steven D. Rudnik,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,
certify, as of the date hereof,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the best of
my  knowledge,   that  the  Company's   Form  10-QSB  fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information  contained in the Form 10-QSB,  fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.


Dated:  May 7, 2006                       /s/ Steven D.Rudnik
                                       -----------------------------------
                                          Steven D. Rudnik
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer



                                                                              22
#### Richard Southgate's Ex'rs *v.*Robert Todd's Adm'rs.

Witnesses — Competency—Party to Action.

A plaintiff in an action against a deceased’s estate was held not to be competent to testify to a declaration made by the decedent.

APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

March 26, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

The right of a surety in an ordinary joint and several promissory note, to avail himself of the statute of limitations for the relief of sureties, even without attacking the form: of the instrument for fraud or mistake, is, we think too well settled for argument or the citation of authority, and we perceive no objection to the instructions and rulings of the court recognizing this principle.

The most difficult and important question presented, is as to the competency of Jacob Hawthorne to testify as a witness for the plaintiffs, he being one of the executors of Richard Southgate, and *621•the husband of one of his devisees, and directly interested in the result of the suit. It may be admitted that as his wife did not propose to testify, neither his interest in the case nor his relationship to her, of themselves disqualified him from being a witness ; but as plaintiff in the action, he was not competent to testify, as was proposed against the estate of the decedent ■ Todd. Act January 3, 1872. Moreover, the testimony which it was suggested he would give, would not, in connection with the other evidence, have proved more than a promise by Todd to pay the debt after he had become released by limitation and had ceased to be under any legal or moral obligation to pay it. In our opinion the court properly rejected Hawthorne as a witness.

/. *R. Hallam, for appellants.*

*F. M. Webster, for appellees.*

We perceive no error in the instruction given to the jury.

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>  1
                                                                   Exhibit 11


                           STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION
                            OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED             SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                   June 30,                      June 30,
                                           ------------------------      ------------------------
                                              1998         1997             1998         1997
                                           -----------  -----------      -----------  -----------
<S>                                       <C>           <C>             <C>          <C>
Numerator:
    Net income for basic and 
        diluted earnings per share        $ 1,063,000  $ 2,176,000      $ 1,366,000  $ 1,688,000
                                           -----------  -----------      -----------  -----------

Denominator:
    Denominator for basic earnings
        per common share - 
        weighted-average shares             3,970,113    3,921,853        3,962,199    3,921,853

    Effect of dilutive securities:
        Employee stock options                 18,342       17,730            9,227       13,345 
                                           -----------  -----------      -----------  -----------
    Denominator for diluted earnings
        per common share -
        weighted-average shares             3,988,455    3,939,583        3,971,426    3,935,198
                                           ===========  ===========      ===========  ===========

Basic earnings per common share           $      0.27  $      0.55      $      0.34  $      0.43
                                           ===========  ===========      ===========  ===========

Diluted earnings per common share         $      0.27  $      0.55      $      0.34  $      0.43 
                                           ===========  ===========      ===========  ===========
</TABLE>









                                    E-2
Summary of 2006 Executive Officer Cash Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.38 
  
 Summary of 2006 Executive Officer Cash Bonus Plan 
  
 Overview and Purpose 
  
 This plan (the “2006 Bonus Plan”) was adopted by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) of Kosan
Biosciences Incorporated (the “Company”) on December 2, 2005 and is designed to offer incentive compensation to executive officer level employees of the Company by rewarding achievement of specifically measured corporate goals and
individual goals. 
  
 Administration 
  
 The 2006 Bonus Plan will be administered by the Compensation Committee. The Compensation
Committee will be responsible for approving, or recommending to the Board of Directors for approval, any incentive awards to executive officers of the Company, including any incentive awards to the Chief Executive Officer. 
  
 Eligibility 
  
 Each executive officer level employee of the Company is eligible to participate in the 2006 Bonus Plan.

  
 Corporate and Individual Performance 
  
 The Compensation Committee has approved the Company’s corporate objectives for 2006,
which include the achievement of performance targets with respect to the Company’s clinical affairs, financial metrics and organization related objectives. Each participant will also be subject to key individual performance objectives. The 2006
Bonus Plan provides for the payment of cash bonuses to participants if corporate and individual performance criteria are achieved during 2006. The actual bonuses payable for 2006 (if any) will vary depending on the extent to which actual performance
meets, exceeds or falls short of the specified corporate objectives and individual performance objectives approved by the Compensation Committee, as determined by the Compensation Committee in its discretion, and on the level of the Company’s
then current or anticipated cash reserves. The Company’s Board of Directors or the Compensation Committee reserves the right to modify the corporate or individual performance objectives at any time based on business changes during the year.

  
 Target Cash Bonus Amount 
  
 The 2006 Bonus Plan provides a target cash bonus amount for each executive officer level
employee of the Company, expressed as a percentage of 2006 base salary for each participant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1392

GHAFOUR ASEMANI, a/k/a Billy G. Asemani,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy G. Asemani, Petitioner Pro Se. Daniel I. Smulow, Trial Attorney, Brandon Thomas 

Callahan, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1392 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Ghafour Asemani, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of an order of 

the Immigration Judge (IJ) directing that he be removed to Iran. The Attorney General 

moves to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the 

petition was untimely filed. The IJ’s decision was issued July 16, 2004. Asemani had 30 

days from this date to timely file a petition for review in this Court. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(1). This time period is “jurisdictional in nature and must be construed with strict 

fidelity to [its] terms.” Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995). It is “not subject to 

equitable tolling.” Id.

The petition for review, dated March 30, 2022, and received by this court on 

April 11, 2022, was filed after the expiration of the 30-day deadline. We accordingly grant 

the motion to dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Asemani’s 

motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1392 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-10701

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JEREAMINE DESHAWN MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-196-2

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jereamine Deshawn Moore has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Moore has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

counsel’s assessmentthat the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 19, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-10701 Document: 00512280118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2013
No. 12-10701

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-10701 Document: 00512280118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2013
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6311

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LEONEL ROMEO CAZACO, a/k/a Jimmy Fingers,

a/k/a Frank Nisbett, a/k/a James Romeo Nelson,

a/k/a Phil, a/k/a Scott,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District

Judge. (CR-96-66)

Submitted: July 20, 2005 Decided: August 4, 2005

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leonel Romeo Cazaco, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, David

John Novak, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Leonel Romeo Cazaco seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b), seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) motion. Because Cazaco’s motion did not assert a

defect in the collateral review process itself, but rather reargued

the merits of his § 2255 motion based on new case law, the district

court concluded that it did not constitute a true Rule 60(b) motion

under our decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207

(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995 (2003). To appeal an order

denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a habeas action, Cazaco must

establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. See

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368 (4th Cir. 2004). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Cazaco has not made the requisite showing.
- 3 -

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 

To the extent that Cazaco’s notice of appeal and informal

brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See

Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208. 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
#### W. H. Moore et al. v. Q. F. Hayden.

Accord and Satisfaction — Payment of Less Sum Thán Due.

Where a judgment defendant- paid in. full satisfaction of the judgment, a sum less than the face of the judgment when the whole amount called for by the judgment was due, without additional consideration, such payment does not discharge the entire judgment debt.

APPEAL PROM SPENCER CIRCUIT COURT.

October 28, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

Apellant had recovered a judgment against appellee for near three hundred dollars besides costs. Appellee paid him $200, and took a writing from him acknowledging the receipt of the $200 in full discharge of said judgment, and binding him, with one Vandyke as his surety, that if said judgment should be reversed in the appellate court, or if appellant had assigned said judgment, or if there was a lien on the same, whereby ap-pellee should have to pay the amount thereof, to refund said two hundred dollars to him, so he risked nothing by the payment. Afterwards, it appears that the attorney for Moore issued an execution on his judgment, the same having been affirmed by this court before the $200 were paid, and collected $75 of the judgment from appellee; and he some years afterwards brought this suit to recover back said $75; and having obtained a judgment therefor, Moore now seeks to'reverse that judgment. It is not alleged in the petition that all of the money was not due and payable when the $200 were paid and accepted in satisfaction of the judgment. Nor is any sufficient cause or consideration set out in the petition for accepting a less sum as payment for the whole debt. It is a well settled principle that in cases of contract for the payment of a certain sum of money, the payment of a less sum will not be' a good satisfaction, unless it was paid and accepted before the time it was due, or some other consideration. 2 Green, Sec. 28.

The instruction given to the jury for appellee, without the qualification as herein indicated, was erroneous. Wher’efore the *256judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to award a new trial for further proceedings consistent herewith.

*H or court, for appellants.*

*T. J. Barker, for appellee.*
FILED: February 10, 2023

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1209

KIRIL ZAHARIEV,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

HARTFORD LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Defendant – Appellee.

O R D E R

The court amends its opinion filed February 3, 2023, as follows:

The final sentence of the opinion is changed to read, “We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.”

For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1209 Doc: 32 Filed: 02/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 1
#### Toliver *v.*Moody.

Motion for New *Trial.—Misconduct of*fury.—Alleged misconduct of the jury, consisting of statements made by one or two jurors in the' jury room, that the defendant is “ a wealthy man,” if any reason for a new trial, is not sufficiently sustained by the oath of the defendant that he had been informed apd believed that such statements had been made in the jury room.

APPEAL from the Lawrence Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

This was an action for slander brought by the appellee against the appellant. . A complaint consisting of three paragraphs was filed, and is set out in the transcript. Separate demurrers were filed to each paragraph, which were overruled. The defendant then answered by general denial. Subsequently the defendant moved the court to strike out certain part's of the complaint, and his motion was *149sustained. The plaintiff was given leave to amend the complaint. The defendant again demurred to the complaint, and his demurrer was overruled. The defendant then again answered. Neither the amended complaint, the demurrer to it, nor the last answer is in the record.

*E. D„ Pearson,..A* B.. Carlton,*and Y *H. Swaar,*for ap-> pellant.

The overruling of the demurrers to the paragraphs of the complaint is assigned as error. But as neither the amended complaint nor the demurrers to it are in the record, we cannot decide whether the action of the court was correct or not.

The only other error assigned is, that the court should have granted a new trial. The new trial was asked on the ground, first, that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict; second, that the verdict is contrary to law; third, that the damages are excessive; fourth, certain misconduct of the jury, consisting in an alleged statement by one or more of the jurors to their fellows in the jury room, that the defendant was “a wealthy man,” which was untrue.

The slanderous words were spoken to the plaintiff and to others, at different times, at a public sale, where there were a hundfed or more persons present. The damages were fourteen hundred dollars. We cannot disturb the judgment on account of the insufficiency of the evidence, or the amount of the damages. The slander was that the plaintiff had been guilty of larceny. The charge of misconduct on the part of the jurors, if it was any reason for a new trial, is not sustained by any evidence. The defendant made oath that he had been informed and believed that such statement had been made in the jury room. This was no evidence upon which to set aside the verdict. We see no reason for reversing the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.*

Buskirk, C. J., having been of counsel for the appellee, was absent.

*

Petition for a rehearing overruled.