alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONNIE ODELL PARKER, :

AIS 162167,

:

Petitioner,

:

vs. CA 10-0016-WS-C

:

LOUIS BOYD,

:

Respondent.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that petitioner’s request for habeas corpus relief, pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, be dismissed as time-barred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).

Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability and, therefore, he is not entitled to

appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE this 25th day of February, 2010.

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00016-WS-C Document 4 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6337
STEVEN E. JONES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM L. SMITH, Warden; JOHN F. HIMMEL, JR., Classification Case Management; BERNICE ALLEN, Classification Supervisor; JOHN LOCKLEAR, Case Management Specialist; LARRY SATTERFIELD, SUI, Supervisor, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA96-460-S) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven E. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Jones v. Smith , No. CA-96-460-S (D. Md. Mar. 1, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 21, 2012

p0514 

# Order

May 21, 2012

144400

GRIEVANCE ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 144400 ADB: 10-25-AI; 10-39-JC PETER W. MACUGA, II, Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not pe rsuaded that the question pr esented should be reviewed by this Court.
11454.

#### Ohlen *v.*McCoy.

Decided July 19, 1920.

Motion to set aside judgment; from Fulton superior court — Judge Ellis. January 16, 1920.

*A. E.*Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

*Guy*Parker, contra.

Smith, J.

1. This was a statutory motion to set aside a judgment (Civil Code, §§ 4358, 5958) ; and, it not affirmatively appearing on the face of the motion, or from movant’s affidavit (the only evidence offered in support thereof), that it was made during term time, and this being essential to the validity of such a motion, the same should have been dismissed. *Lovett*v. *Vickers,*24 *Ga. App.*407 (100 S. E. 755); *Bedgood*v. *Floyd,*20 *Ga. App.*617 (93 S. E. 218) ; *Gillespie*v. *Farkas,*19 *Ga. App.*158 (2) (91 S. E. 244) ; *Malsby*v. *Studstill,*127 *Ga.*726, 728 (56 S. E. 988), and cit.

2. “Where parties have a case in court, it is their duty to attend and look after their interests. They cannot remain away without sufficient cause and subsequently have set aside a judgment properly rendered against them, especially where, by the exercise of the least diligence, they could have ascertained the time when the ease was set for trial.” *Seifert*v. *Holt,*82 *Ga.*757 (3) (9 S. E. 843). This is true notwithstanding a motion to set aside a judgment is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial judge, since it should not be granted unless some meritorious reason be given therefor. *Moore*V. *Kelly & Jones Co.,*109 *Ga.*798 (2) (35 S. E. 168); *Ingalls*V. *Lamar,*115 *Ga.*296, 299 (41 S. E. 573). The failure of the defendant’s counsel to appear and defend the case, solely because he inadvertently, in reading the court calendar, overlooked the case which was printed thereon, affords no such reason. See *Kellam*v. *Todd,*114 *Ga.*981 (41 S. E. 39) ; *Ayer*v. *James,*120 *Ga.*578 (48 S. E. 154).

3. While the above deals with the motion as one to set aside a judgment based on a verdict, even if it be treated as a motion to vacate a verdict it was legally insufficient *(Ayer*v. *James,*supra) ; and the judge erred in sustaining it and reopening the case.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., concurs. Stephens, J., concurs upon the grounds announced in paragraphs 2 and 3.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ANTHONY N. JONES, #112734, : 

Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 09-0835-CG-M 

GRANTT CULLIVER, et al., : 

 

Defendants. : 

JUDGMENT 

 It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the claims against Defendants 

Culliver, Patterson, Folk, and Hicks be dismissed without prejudice, prior to service of process, 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted; that the claims against Defendants White, Thomas, and Marks be dismissed without 

prejudice for lack of venue; and that the request for a preliminary injunction be denied as moot. 

DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:09-cv-00835-CG-M Document 38 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 1
Opinion issued April 10, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 14 - 00 0 99 - CV

——————————— RUTHERFORD COLVIN , Appellant

V. HUDSON INSURANCE COM PANY , Appellee On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1021999

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Rutherford Colvin , has neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5, 20.1 ; see also T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § § 51.207 , 51.941(a) , 101.041 ( West 201 3 ); Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts2

of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07

- 9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007), reprinted in T EX . R. A PP . P . app. A § B(1)

. After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 5 , 42.3(c). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees

. We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp

.
11140.

#### Hewlett, executor, *v.*Almand *et al.*

Decided May 12, 1920.

Complaint; from Rockdale superior court — Judge Hutcheson. November 24, 1919.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

*Winfield*

*Payne*Jones, *J. R.*Irwin, for plaintiff in error.

*J. H. McCalla, Edgar*Watkins, *Richard B.*Russell, contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. An existing contract is superseded and discharged whenever the parties subsequently enter upon a valid and inconsistent agreement completely covering the subject-matter embraced by the original contract. *American Sewer Pipe Co.*v. *Mathews,*19 *Ga. App.*248 (3) (91 S. E. 284) ; Housekeeper Pub. Co. *v.*Swift, 97 Fed. 290 (38 C. C. A. 187).

2. Such a -subsequent agreement, amounting to a substitution of the former contract, may be collected from several different contemporaneous writings which when taken together constitute a new and complete agreement. 13 C. J. 304, § 126 (4). Thus, where parties enter into an antenuptial marriage contract whereby the wife, in consideration of marriage, is to receive, at the death of the husband, the sum of $12,000, and a prescribed income from the said sum during the husband’s life, and where prior to the date of the marriage a similar contract is signed whereby the wife is to receive the named sum of $10,000, but, contemporaneously with the execution of the latter agreement, receives from the intended husband a promissory note for $2,000, the second contract and the contemporaneous note can properly be taken as together superseding and discharging the original agreement, although neither of the two latter instruments refers to the other. The note, being- alleged to have been given in part extinguishment of the former marriage contract, is not without consideration; and, although the second contract may on its face appear to be complete within itself, the rule that prevents a complete and certain contract in writing from being varied by parol evidence, except in cases of fraud, accident, or mistake, does not have application where the additional obligation was for a valid consideration contemporaneously entered upon in writing. The court did not err in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.*
United States Department of Com

National Institute of Standards and Technolo

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For: 

Wisconsin 

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), maintains a documented calibration program, documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully completed training and proficiency tests, submitted a quality management system, and has demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate. The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017. 

Scope 

Mass Echelon II Mass Echelon III Volume Transfer, II 5 kg to 1 mg 500 kg to 1 mg 1000 gal to 5 gal

10 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

3000 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

Weight Carts

6000 lb to 3000 lb

Volume Transfer, II LPG 750 gal to 25 galStopwatches 8 h to 1 min

___________Katrice LippNIST Office Effective Date

(Rev.: September 2021)
EXHIBIT 10.2

            Terms of December 2005 Amendment to Employment Agreement
                  between Bay National Bank and Hugh W. Mohler


         On December 7, 2004, the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of Bay National Bank increased, effective January 1, 2005, Hugh
Mohler's annual base compensation from $164,000 to $200,000. Mr. Mohler's
initial base compensation of $154,000 was previously increased to $164,000 in
December 2001.

         Also, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Bank
approved discretionary bonuses to Mr. Mohler of $30,000 and $50,000 in December
2003 and 2004, respectively (the agreement is silent with respect to the payment
of bonuses to Mr. Mohler). These bonuses were paid in February 2004 and January
2005, respectively.


<PAGE>
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 Vineyard National Bancorp (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), the undersigneds hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
      to
      the undersigneds’ best knowledge and belief:





(a)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





Dated
      this 11th day of August, 2008





Vineyard
      National
      Bancorp


("Company")








/s/
      James G.
      LeSieur


James
      G.
      LeSieur


Interim
      Chief Executive Officer








/s/
      Gordon
      Fong


Gordon
      Fong


Executive
      Vice President and Chief
      Financial Officer





___________________





*
A
      signed original of this written
      statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
      be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

)

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL ACTION 01:09-00009-KD-B

)

WILLIE BRAXTON, III, )

)

 Defendant. )

)

ORDER

Before the Court are CJA claims for services filed by court reporters Eddie Howard (Doc.

70) and Roy Isbell (Doc. 71). Defendant Braxton failed to establish his financial eligibility for

representation under the Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, and the Eleventh Circuit

dismissed his appeal (Doc. 72). As a result, the Court lacks authority to order payment from CJA

funds, and the claims (Docs. 70 & 71) must be and are hereby DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 22nd day of March, 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:09-cr-00009-KD-B Document 73 Filed 03/22/10 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE> 1
                                                            EXHIBIT 24.2




                               MONSANTO COMPANY
                                 CERTIFICATE
                                 -----------


I, Sonya M. Davis, Assistant Secretary of Monsanto Company, hereby certify
that the following is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution adopted
by the Board of Directors of Monsanto Company on February 28, 1997, at which
meeting a quorum was present and acting throughout:

      RESOLVED, that each officer and director who may be required to sign
and execute Form 10-K or any document in connection therewith
(whether for and on behalf of the Company, or as an officer or
director of the Company, or otherwise), be and hereby is authorized
to execute a power of attorney appointing R. William Ide, III and
Sonya M. Davis or either of them acting alone, his true and lawful
attorney or attorneys to sign in his name, place and stead in any
such capacity such Form 10-K and any and all amendments thereto and
documents in connection therewith, and to file the same with the
Commission or any other governmental body, each of said attorneys to
have power to act with or without the others, and to have full power
and authority to do and perform, in the name and on behalf of each
of said officers and directors, every act whatsoever which such
attorneys, or any one of them, may deem necessary, appropriate or
desirable to be done in connection therewith as fully and to all
intents and purposes as such officers or directors might or could do
in person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand in my official capacity and
affixed the corporate seal of Monsanto Company this 12th day of March, 1997.

                                                /s/ Sonya M. Davis
                                          ---------------------------------
                                                Sonya M. Davis
                                                Assistant Secretary


SEAL
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE-MONTHS ENDED AUGUST
31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,444,932
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  854,594
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,000
<INVENTORY>                                    871,155
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,167,253
<PP&E>                                         419,508
<DEPRECIATION>                               (186,135)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,578,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          909,010
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,313
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,367,520
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,578,843
<SALES>                                      1,174,328
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,174,328
<CGS>                                          272,074
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  272,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,374,668
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               100,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,447
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (472,414)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (472,414)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (472,414)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 annual Report on Form 10-K of Monmouth Capital Corporation (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Eugene W. Landy, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Anna T. Chew, as Chief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, 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 their knowledge:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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

















By:       /s/ Eugene W. Landy

Name:  Eugene W. Landy

Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:   March 11, 2005





By:       /s/ Anna T. Chew

Name:  Anna T. Chew

Title:    Chief Financial Officer

Date:    March 11, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000839950
<NAME> NORTH COAST ENERGY, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       6,155,681
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,858,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    308,155
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,672,995
<PP&E>                                      56,220,806
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,442,756
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,139,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,112,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,063
<COMMON>                                        55,995
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,346,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,405,321
<SALES>                                      4,967,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,967,555
<CGS>                                        4,920,576
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,920,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (60,972)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             914,292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (806,341)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (806,341)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (806,341)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Nash Finch Company of our report dated February 19, 1996, included in the
1995 Annual Report to Shareholders of Nash Finch Company.

Our audit also included the financial statement schedule of Nash Finch Company
listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audit. In
our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly
in all material respects the information set forth therein in so far as such
information relates to periods covered by our report.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
33-64313 and Registration Statement No. 33-54487 on Form S-8 of our report dated
February 19, 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Nash Finch Company.



Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 27, 1996
<PAGE>   1
                                                                       EXHIBIT 8


                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

All companies listed below are incorporated and organized under the laws of
Mexico, except for Mexican Cellular Investments Inc. organized under the laws of
the state of Georgia, United States of America:



1.       Grupo Iusacell Celular, S.A. de C.V.
2.       SOS Telecomunicaciones, S.A. de C.V.
3.       Iusacell, S.A. de C.V.
4.       Sistecel, S.A. de C.V.
5.       Comunicaciones Celulares de Occidente, S.A. de C.V.
6.       Sistemas Telefonicos Portatiles Celulares, S.A. de C.V.
7.       Telecomunicaciones del Golfo, S.A. de C.V.
8.       In Flight Phone de Mexico S.A. de C.V.
9.       Inmobiliaria Montes Urales 460 S.A. de C.V.
10.      Mexican Cellular Investments Inc.
11.      Iusanet, S.A. de C.V.
12.      Promotora Celular, S.A. de C.V.
13.      Iusatelecomunicaciones, S.A. de C.V.
14.      Iusatel, S.A. de C.V.
15.      Punto a Punto Iusacell, S.A. de C.V.
16.      Iusacell Infraestructura S.A. de C.V.
17.      Iusacell Infraestructura de Mexico S.A. de C.V.
18.      Iusacell Arrendadora S.A. de C.V.
19.      Iusacell PCS, S.A. de C.V.
20.      Infotelecom, S.A. de C.V.




                                      E-132