alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11129.

#### Kelley *v.*Ramey.

Decided March 3, 1920.

Broyles, C. J.

1. “It being legally possible for the owner of realty to sell and convey it to another at an agreed cash price, and at the same time secure the right to repurchase, and become bound so to do, at a higher price payable in the future, the law will enforce such a transaction when actually made.” *Felton*v. *Grier,*109 *Ga.,*320 (35 S. E. 175).

2. “Though the transaction now under review in many respects very closely resembled a mere loan of money at a usurious rate of interest, secured by a deed to land, yet as there was direct and positive' evidence warranting the special findings of fact to the effect that it was a bona fide case of bargain and sale with a contemporaneous agreement by the vendee to resell to the vendor, and a binding contract 'by the latter to repurchase, the verdict must be allowed to stand.” *Felton*v. *Grier,*supra.

3. Whether a deed was taken as security for a debt, or, together with a contemporaneous writing, evidenced a sale with option to repurchase, was a question for the jury. *Brown*v. *Bonds,*125 *Ga.*833, 837 (54 S. E. 933).

4. Whether a given transaction was a bona fide sale of property with the right to repurchase, or whether it was a ruse designed to avoid the usury laws and to take security for the loan of money at a usurious rate of interest, is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. *Rogers*v. *Blouenstein,*124 *Ga.*501 (52 S. E. 617, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 213).

5. The burden of affirmatively showing usury in a transaction is upon the party pleading it; and the mere circumstance that the profit of the other party to the transaction was equivalent to more than the lawful rate of interest per annum on the capital invested would not necessarily show that the transaction was a loan of money and not a sale. *Fulwood*v. *Leitch,*7 *Ga. App.*360 (66 S. E. 987).

6. When the principles of law stated above are applied to the facts of this ease, a verdict for the defendant was authorized, and, the findings of the jury having been approved by the judge, this court is without authority to interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., eonour.*

*29Complaint; from Kabun superior court—Judge J. B. Jones. November 10, 1919.

*R. C. Ramey, McMillan & Erwin,*for plaintiff.

*Thad. L. Bynum,*for defendant.
M CORP

                               EXHIBIT #22

                              SUBSIDIARIES


                                                                   Percentage
                                                                     Voting
                                                                   Securities
                                       State of                     Owned By
Name Of Company                      Organization                  Registrant

Century Title Insurance Company
  (Inactive)                           Montana                         100.0

Diversified Realty, Inc.               Montana                          94.4

TSI, Inc.                              Montana                          92.0

UAC, Inc.                              Delaware                          (1)

TSI Business Systems, Inc.             Montana                           (2)

TSI Leasing, Inc.                      Montana                           (2)

First Mortgage Investors, Inc.
  (Inactive)                           North Dakota                      (3)

First Montana Title Company of
  Great Falls                          Montana                           (4)

First Montana Title Insurance
  Company                              Montana                           (2)

First Montana Title Company of
  Billings                             Montana                           (5)

First Montana Title Company of
  Forsyth                              Montana                           (5)

Consulting Associates, Inc.            Montana                           (4)


     (1) Owned 87% by TSI, Inc.
     (2) Owned 100% by TSI, Inc.
     (3) Owned 70% by UAC, Inc.
     (4) Owned 100% by UAC, Inc.
     (5) Owned 100% by First Montana Title Insurance Company



TSI, Inc. and Diversified Realty, Inc., are each registered under the
Exchange Act and each files its own Form 10-KSB pursuant to that act.


<PAGE>
#### Alexander McGregor *v.*Ellen Brown et al. Same *v.*Susanna Remarginge.

Boundaries — Plat—Purchasers of Lots.

The.purchasers of the lots from the parties who made out and recorded the plat, are bound by the plat, in the absence of a showing that the plat does not correctly describe the lots, streets and alleys.

APPEAL PROM KENTON CIRCUIT 'COURT.

March 17, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The conveyances under which the parties claim, title describe their lots by the numbers, respectively, as shown on the plat of West Covington; made out and recorded by “Gibson Wright, Vonzarts Haymon, Whittaker, Curds & Mitchell.” An accurate copy of this plat is now before us.

The purchasers of the lots from the parties who made out and recorded this plat, are bound by it as .to all questions of boundary, unless it can be affirmatively shown that it does not correctly describe the lots, streets and alleys, as actually laid out and marked on the ground, or that the plan of the addition to the town was changed before the parties litigant, or those under whom they claim title, had acquired rights.

The proof in the record wholly fails to make out a mistake in the plat as to the lots owned by the parties to this litigation; and' there is no pretense that the plan was ever changed with the concurrence of all the parties in interest.

*587
      *Stevenson, Myers, for appellant.*

*Carlisle, Foote, for appellees.*

If any considerable portion of the lots on High Street, to the left of Hagerman Street, were shown to be inclosed or built upon the-location of the street as recognized by the property owners, this fact would be entitled to great weight in determining whether or not the recorded plat was correct; but there is no evidence conducing to show that any number of these lots have been built on or enclosed.

In such a state of case the plat must control. As the record now stands, appellant made out his case, and the court erred in dismissing his petition. Judgment reversed and cause, remanded for new trial.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE JACOBO ESCOBAR,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 14

- 72402

Agency No. A094

- 286

- 899

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 1 3 , 2016 **

Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges

.

Jose Jacobo Escobar , a native and citizen of Honduras , petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano

- Merida v. INS , 311

* 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). 

# FILED

APR 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

14

- 72402

F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002) . We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Escobar’s untimely motion

to reopen because the evidence supporting his motion , including the declarations of

Escobar’s father and daughter, did not establish prim a facie eligibility for CAT

reli ef

. See id. at 965

- 66 (BIA did not abuse its discretion in denyin g petitioners’

motion to reopen to seek CAT relief where petitioner did not demonstrate it was

more likely than not he would be tortured with the consent or ac quiescence of a

public official if returned to Guatemala ).

We reject Escobar’s contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence

.

S ee Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 990

- 91 (9th Cir. 2009) (BIA adequately

considered evidence and suffi ciently announced its decision).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 87-6469.

#### Armijo *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
REVISED 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 20-60106

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellant ,

versus

Okanlawan O. Norbert,

Defendant—Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:19-cr-50

Before Owen, Chief Judge , and Davis, Jones, Smith, Stewart, Dennis, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Costa, Willett, Ho, Dunc an, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges

.
Per Curiam:
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED by an equally divided court. Our “judgment [is] not en titled to precedential weight no matter what reasoning ma y have supported it.” Rutledge v. United States , 517 U.S. 292, 304 (1996). United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 4, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-60106 Document: 00516192660 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/04/2022
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, James W. Bernau, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Willamette Valley
Vineyards, Incorporated;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business
issuer and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: December 6, 2004
/s/ James W. Bernau
    James W. Bernau,
    Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.1


 








 





[Form of Inside Director Letter]


 


 


 


March 11, 2015


   


[NAME] 


[ADDRESS]


   


Dear [____],


   





On behalf of Global Defense & National Security Systems,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), I am pleased to confirm that as a member of the Company’s Board
of Directors (the “Board”), you will be entitled to receive the compensation described below on the terms set forth
herein.


 


Subject to the consummation of the Company’s initial “Business
Combination” (as defined in the Company’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation), post Business Combination
if you continue on the Board [in a capacity other than Chairman of the Board] your annual cash retainer will be $60,000; and an
annual cash retainer of $5,000 for your service on each committee of the Board on which you serve. These annual retainers will
be available for as long as you continue to serve on the Board and will be subject to adjustment by the Board from time to time.


 


[If you continue on the Board post-Business Combination in the
capacity of Chairman your annual cash retainer will be $80,000, which shall be inclusive of any committee retainers.]


 


In receiving this letter, this will not preclude you from being
granted options under the Company’s Stock Incentive Plans or payment in lieu of in the future.


 

Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered by you, this agreement may not be assigned by you without the prior
written consent of the Company.



This agreement expresses the entire understanding with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and terminates any
prior oral or written agreements with respect to the subject matter hereof.  All questions with respect to the construction
and/or enforcement of this agreement, the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder, and your responsibilities as a
Director of the Company, shall be determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware.  This agreement may be
amended only with the written consent of the parties hereto.  This agreement may be executed in separate counterparts, each
of which shall be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.  This agreement
may be executed by electronic or facsimile signature, which shall be considered enforceable for all purposes.


   




    	 



    	 



    

 


If the foregoing terms are agreeable, please indicate your acceptance
by signing this letter in the space provided below and returning it to the Company.


 


 


Sincerely,


 


 





	Global Defense & National Security Systems, Inc.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:  	 	 	 
	 	Name:	 	 
	 	Title:	 	 



  


 


 


	Accepted by:	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	Signature: 	 	 	 
	 	Name:	 	 



 


	Date:
SUBROUTINE PARCDF(X,GAMMA,CDF)
C
C     PURPOSE--THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
C              FUNCTION VALUE FOR THE PARETO
C              DISTRIBUTION WITH SINGLE PRECISION 
C              TAIL LENGTH PARAMETER = GAMMA.
C              THE PARETO DISTRIBUTION USED
C              HEREIN IS DEFINED FOR ALL X GREATER THAN
C              OR EQUAL TO 1, 
C              AND HAS THE PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION
C              F(X) = GAMMA / (X**(GAMMA+1)).
C     INPUT  ARGUMENTS--X      = THE SINGLE PRECISION VALUE 
C                                AT WHICH THE CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION 
C                                FUNCTION IS TO BE EVALUATED.
C                                X SHOULD BE GREATER THAN
C                                OR EQUAL TO 1.
C                     --GAMMA  = THE SINGLE PRECISION VALUE 
C                                OF THE TAIL LENGTH PARAMETER.
C                                GAMMA SHOULD BE POSITIVE.
C     OUTPUT ARGUMENTS--CDF    = THE SINGLE PRECISION CUMULATIVE
C                                DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION VALUE.
C     OUTPUT--THE SINGLE PRECISION CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
C             FUNCTION VALUE CDF FOR THE PARETO
C             DISTRIBUTION WITH TAIL LENGTH PARAMETER VALUE = GAMMA.
C     PRINTING--NONE UNLESS AN INPUT ARGUMENT ERROR CONDITION EXISTS. 
C     RESTRICTIONS--GAMMA SHOULD BE POSITIVE.
C                 --X SHOULD BE GREATER THAN
C                   OR EQUAL TO 1.
C     OTHER DATAPAC   SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     FORTRAN LIBRARY SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     MODE OF INTERNAL OPERATIONS--SINGLE PRECISION.
C     LANGUAGE--ANSI FORTRAN. 
C     REFERENCES--JOHNSON AND KOTZ, CONTINUOUS UNIVARIATE
C                 DISTRIBUTIONS--1, 1970, PAGES 233-249.
C               --HASTINGS AND PEACOCK, STATISTICAL
C                 DISTRIBUTIONS--A HANDBOOK FOR
C                 STUDENTS AND PRACTITIONERS, 1975,
C                 PAGE 102.
C     WRITTEN BY--JAMES J. FILLIBEN
C                 STATISTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (205.03)
C                 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
C                 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20234
C                 PHONE:  301-921-2315
C     ORIGINAL VERSION--NOVEMBER  1975. 
C
C---------------------------------------------------------------------
C
      IPR=6
C
C     CHECK THE INPUT ARGUMENTS FOR ERRORS
C
      IF(X.LT.1.0)GOTO50
      IF(GAMMA.LE.0.0)GOTO55
      GOTO90
   50 WRITE(IPR,4)
      WRITE(IPR,46)X
      CDF=0.0
      RETURN
   55 WRITE(IPR,15) 
      WRITE(IPR,46)GAMMA
      CDF=0.0
      RETURN
   90 CONTINUE
    4 FORMAT(1H ,101H***** NON-FATAL DIAGNOSTIC--THE FIRST  INPUT ARGUME
     1NT TO THE PARCDF SUBROUTINE IS LESS THAN 1.0 *****)
   15 FORMAT(1H , 91H***** FATAL ERROR--THE SECOND INPUT ARGUMENT TO THE
     1 PARCDF SUBROUTINE IS NON-POSITIVE *****)
   46 FORMAT(1H , 35H***** THE VALUE OF THE ARGUMENT IS ,E15.8,6H *****)
C
C-----START POINT-----------------------------------------------------
C
      CDF=1.0-(X**(-GAMMA))
C
      RETURN
      END
Exhibit 12.1
 NASH-FINCH COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 Fiscal Year EndedDecember
    
    
    December
    
    
    January 3,
    
    
    January 2,
    
    
    January 1,(in thousands, except ratios)
    
    30, 2006
    
    
    29, 2007
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2010
    
    
    2011Fixed Charges:Interest expense on indebtedness
    
    $
    30,840
    
    
    $
    28,088
    
    
    $
    26,466
    
    
    $
    24,372
    
    
    $
    23,403Rent expense (1/3 of total rent expense)
    
    
    9,966
    
    
    
    9,057
    
    
    
    9,496
    
    
    
    10,318
    
    
    
    9,728Total fixed charges
    
    $
    40,806
    
    
    $
    37,145
    
    
    $
    35,962
    
    
    $
    34,690
    
    
    $
    33,131Earnings:Earnings (loss) before provision for income taxes
    
    $
    (21,689
    )
    
    $
    53,015
    
    
    $
    53,791
    
    
    $
    23,750
    
    
    $
    72,126Fixed charges
    
    
    40,806
    
    
    
    37,145
    
    
    
    35,962
    
    
    
    34,690
    
    
    
    33,131Total earnings
    
    $
    19,117
    
    
    $
    90,160
    
    
    $
    89,753
    
    
    $
    58,440
    
    
    $
    105,257Ratio
    
    
    0.47
    
    
    
    2.43
    
    
    
    2.50
    
    
    
    1.68
    
    
    
    3.18
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 UNITED STATES CODE § 1350

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies that to his knowledge the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal period ended September 30, 2003 of Allstate
Life Insurance Company of New York filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission 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 such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Allstate Life Insurance Company of New York.

Date:
November 14, 2003

| | /s/ CASEY J. SYLLACasey J. Sylla
Chairman of the Board and President            | 
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | /s/ STEVEN E. SHEBIKSteven E. Shebik
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer | 

E-5

---
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00142

- CR

Leticia McWilliams

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

o f Ta rrant County (1174887D )

December 18, 2014

Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s j udgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

____________________ Justice Sue Walker
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIOLOK INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD
ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO 
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,531
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  538,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                    27,679
<INVENTORY>                                  1,145,108
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,665,288
<PP&E>                                       1,006,649
<DEPRECIATION>                                 740,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,061,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          525,806
<BONDS>                                        546,844
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,998
<OTHER-SE>                                     762,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,061,822
<SALES>                                      1,113,913
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,113,913
<CGS>                                          351,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  237,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               447,776
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              70,755
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,020
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,020
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .002
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .002
        

</TABLE>