alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *A.*R. Green *v.*Wesley Whalley.

Married Women — Contracts to Pay Money Void — Description in Judgment.

A contract of a married woman to pay money is void, and while she may, after she ceases to be a married woman, consent that her real estate be ordered sold to pay said debts, where she does not then make a new promise to pay such debts no personal judgment can be taken against her.

*241Description in Judgment.

A judgment ordering the sale of real estate must contain such a description of the land as will énable the commissioner and purchasers to find it without reference to papers and exhibits on file in the case.

APPEAL PROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT.

December 10, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The promises made by appellant whilst a married woman were not only not enforceable, but when treated as contracts to pay money, were absolutely void. She may have recognized, or, in fact, ratified said contracts after she became discovert, and still not be bound by them. To make them personally binding upon her, it was necessary that she should, after becoming discovert, enter into new contracts, and distinctly and' unequivocally agree to pay the sums of money theretofore loaned, paid, or advanced at her instance and request. By her answer of September 20, 1873, appellant admits the execution (whilst a married woman) of the note for $1,024.80, and the payment by appellee to Armstrong, at her request, of $413.49. She also admits the execution of the note for $259. Her answer concludes in these words: “She hereby consents that a judgment may be rendered to sell the said lands to pay the said debts of plaintiff, that said debts are just, and she is willing that her said lands may be sold, or enough thereof to satisfy the plaintiff "by said debts.”

It is evident from this language, that appellant merely intended to consent that the lands referred to should be subjected- to the payment of debts recognized by her to be just, although not collectible from her. Whilst recognizing the justice of appellee’s claims, she not only does not, in terms, promise to pay them, but does not intimate that she is willing to be personally bound for their payment. It was, therefore, error to render a personal judgment against her.

The judgment decreeing a sale of the land is defective in failing properly to describe it. It is described as a tract of land levied upon by the sheriff of Rowan county, lying in said county of Rowan, and which is also described fully by[ the deed of conveyance filed by the defendant, A. R. Green.

This court has repeatedly held that a judgment directing the sale of real property, should so describe it as to enable the commissioner *242to'sell, and purchasers to find and identify it, without reference to papers and exhibits on file in the cause.

*Reid & Stone, J. & J. W. Rodman, for appellant.*

*Nesbitt & Gudgal, for appellee.*

Judgment *reversed,*and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
#### L. F. Saunders, et al., *v.*R. H. Gale, et al.

Change of Venue — Objections and Exceptions.

Where no exceptions were taken to an order of the court changing the venue of a cause and no objections made to the jurisdiction of the court to whom it was sent, no question can be raised in the court of appeals.

APPEAL FROM OLDHAM CIRCUIT COURT.

October 9, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

There was no objection made or exception taken to the order changing the venue to the Oldham circuit court; nor was there any motion in that court to remand the case or objection taken to its jurisdiction. The Owen circuit court had jurisdiction to make the order, and no exception having been taken at the time, any error the court may have committed in making the order before making further efforts to obtain a special judge in that court, was waived. The Owen court having had jurisdiction to make the order of removal, the Oldham circuit court had jurisdiction to render a judgment.

*501
      *L. F. Saunders, for appellants. J. D. Lillard, for appellees.*

Sec. 16, of Chap. 13, of the Revised Statutes, which provided that there should be but one order of removal of the same cause, at the instance of the same party, had no application to this case. The order of removal was not made at the instance of either party.

The court allowed the master commissioner one hundred dollars for making sale of the land adjudged to be sold. The land was sold for $5,497.25, and bonds therefor were taken payable to the commissioner.

The bonds being payable to the commissioner, it will be his duty to execute bonds, unless he has already given bond as receiver, and to collect and disburse the money. The allowance is not unreasonable, and does not exceed the amount which the statute authorized the court to make. The record itself affords sufficient evidence to show that the allowance was not unreasonable.

Perceiving no error to the prejudice of the appellants, the judgment is *affirmed.*
Exhibit 4.8

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT

The first sentence of Section 2.1(a) of the Registration Rights Agreement dated November 2, 2007 (the "Agreement"), by and between Mines
Management, Inc. (the "Company") and Silver Wheaton Corp. will be amended to read as follows:

(a)Registration. The Company shall prepare and file with the Commission as soon as practicable but in any event within
forty-five (45) days after the Closing Date (the "Filing Deadline") and use its commercially reasonable efforts to have declared
effective as soon as practicable thereafter (but in any event no later than 11:59 p.m. on March 31, 2008 ("Effectiveness Deadline")), a
registration statement on Form S-3 (or, if the Company is not then eligible to use Form S-3, another appropriate form) providing for the resale by the Holders of
all of the Registrable Securities (the "Shelf Registration Statement").

Except
as modified herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

|AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED THIS
12th DAY OF MARCH, 2008 |  | AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED THIS
12th DAY OF MARCH, 2008
|--------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Silver Wheaton Corp.                                |  | Mines Management, Inc.                             
|/s/NOLAN WATSON                                     |  | /s/JAMES H. MOORE                                  
|By:                                                 |  | Nolan Watson
Chief Financial Officer               

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                  LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF GOLDEN TELECOM, INC.

                        AS AT DECEMBER 31, 2000

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
COMPANY                                                   JURISDICTION
-------                                                   ------------
<S>                                                     <C>
Golden Telecom Group, Inc.                                  Delaware
SFMT-CIS, Inc.                                              Delaware
GTS Finance, Inc.                                           Delaware
GTS Ukrainian TeleSystems LLC                               Delaware
GTS Mobile Services, Inc.                                   Delaware
TeleSystems Services, Inc.                                  Delaware
Golden TeleServices, Inc.                                   Delaware
GT Equipment Services, Inc.                                 Delaware
Sovinet, Inc.                                               Delaware
GTS-Vox Ltd.                                            England & Wales
SFMT-Rusnet, Inc.                                           Delaware
CellUkraine Ltd.                                            Delaware
Golden Holdings, Inc.                                       Delaware
ROL Holdings Ltd.                                           Cyprus
Agama Ltd.                                                  Cyprus
MCT Corp. (approximately 23% ownership)                     Delaware
EDN Sovintel LLC                                            Russia
Sovam Teleport Kiev Branch LLC                              Ukraine
TeleRoss LLC                                                Russia
Nevatelecom LLC                                             Russia
TeleRoss-Vladivostok                                        Russia
TeleRoss-Novosibirsk                                        Russia
TeleRoss-Irkutsk                                            Russia
TeleRoss-Tiumen                                             Russia
TeleRoss-Ufa                                                Russia
TeleRoss-Kubanelectrosvyaz                                  Russia
TeleRoss-Ekaterinburg                                       Russia
TeleRoss-Komi                                               Russia
TeleRoss-Nizhnyi Novogorod                                  Russia
TeleRoss-Arkangelsk                                         Russia
TeleRoss-Khabarovsk                                         Russia
TeleRoss-Voronezh                                           Russia
TeleRoss-Volgograd                                          Russia
TeleRoss-Samara                                             Russia
Commercial Information System (KIS) LLC                     Russia
Golden Telecom LLC                                          Ukraine
Invest Holding LLC                                          Ukraine
SA-Telcom LLP                                              Kazakhstan
</TABLE>
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1671 

To allow additional individuals to enroll in standalone dental plans offered 

through Federal Exchanges. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2023 

Mr. CURTIS (for himself and Mrs. DINGELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To allow additional individuals to enroll in standalone dental 

plans offered through Federal Exchanges. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Increasing Access to 

5 Dental Insurance Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. STANDALONE DENTAL PLANS. 

7 Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Afford8 able Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18041) is amended by adding 

9 at the end the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1671 IH

1 ‘‘(f) AVAILABILITY OF STANDALONE DENTAL

2 PLANS.—The Secretary may not restrict any qualified in3 dividual from enrolling in a plan described in section 

4 1311(d)(2)(B)(ii) offered through an Exchange estab5 lished pursuant to subsection (c) on the basis of such 

6 qualified individual not being also enrolled in a qualified 

7 health plan offered through the Exchange.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
! " #$%&' !
!
(! )*"*" 


#(+,-,,-+,	+$,$#	,

.


//////////"//////////

#

"0
















$"
(1

#(1


*2 0
1


!
 "0

2 0
1

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#30 .


 .

.
4 
 !"" .
  
#$

%&'
 .

003"0
03"
)"
 
*
"


.."

" )"
5 
*6)

*7

0


)6.
#

"

$00""3 " #$

%88 9."

" .09: .
3*6"
0
"
.#;%4


.
"

""
.#$%&''&9.

<
..
6
33*)*
9

IT IS ORDERED..
0"1

-(+- ;	(,-.


="3
 "*603"
"


03"0
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  0."is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

-<
3".
7"
3
9**3"".
> 0

 ".**
0



IT IS SO ORDERED



1

Judge’s signature

-


1

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

JAKEITH TERRELL CAMPBELL 12-00161-002

12788-003

11-14-2013

Pro Se

✔

✔

50 41 months

11-14-2013

05-18-2015

11-01-2015 United States District Judge

The defendant received sentences of 60 months on Count Four and 300 months on

Count Seven, each consecutive to the sentence on Count One and to each other.

Amendment 782 has no effect on the sentences imposed on Counts Four and Seven.

Callie V.S. Granade 

U.S. District Judge

Digitally signed by Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge 

DN: cn=Callie V.S. Granade U.S. District Judge, o=U.S. 

Government, ou=Federal Judiciary, 

email=efile_granade@alsd.uscourts.gov, c=US 

Date: 2015.05.18 13:32:33 -06'00'

Case 1:12-cr-00161-CG-B Document 177 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1

                CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                             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 of Nortia Capital Partners,
Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ending April 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, William Bosso, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to
Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002,

       i.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
            13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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


/s/ WILLIAM BOSSO
--------------------------------------
William Bosso, Chief Executive Officer

Date:	November 18, 2005
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CFO PURSUANT TO**

 

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

**As AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Inconnection with the report of Gaiam, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen J.Thomas, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)     The Report fully complies with therequirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

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

 

Date:  March 12, 2010

 
|   | /s/  Stephen J. Thomas         |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | Stephen  J. Thomas             |
|   | Chief  Accounting Officer      |
|   | (Principal  Financial Officer) |

 

----
No. 15,888.

#### Henshaw et al. *v.*The People’s Mutual Natural Gas Company.

*Injunction.*— Natural *Gas.*— Grant *of Free Use of.*— Improper *Action of Officers of Corporation.*— Where the president and secretary of a natural gas company, with the consent of one S., who was a director of the com- • pany, but against the will and without the consent of the board of directors, granted to D. the right to take gas from the well of the company free of charge, to be used by him in his business, an injunction will lie against said D. and the officers of the company who granted the privilege to him to prevent such use of the gas.

From the Madison Circuit Court.

*J. B. Orr*and *B. McMahan,*for appellants.

*J. W. Lovett*and *S. M. Keltner,*for appellee.

Coffey, J.

— rThe People’s Mutual Natural Gas Company was incorporated for the purpose of supplying its stockholders and others with natural gas.

After its incorporation it sunk a well upon a small tract of land owned by it, and proceeded to carry out the objects for which it was incorporated.

The affairs of the company are managed by seven directors. At the time of the grievances set out in the complaint the appellant Samuel Cassel was president, Seth B. Henshaw was secretary, and Perry Heritage was the treasurer. Without the consent or direction of the directors the appellants, Cassel and Henshaw, as president and secretary, with the consent of the appellant Sherman, who was a director, granted to John W. Davis the right to take gas from the well of the appellees, free of charge, to be used by him in burning brick at his brick-yards. He was about to tap the well for that purpose when this- action was brought in the Madison Circuit Court for the purpose of enjoining him and the appellants from so doing. Upon a trial of the cause a *546perpetual injunction was granted. Davis having died, his administrator declined to join in this appeal.

Filed Nov. 2, 1892.

The only matter urged for a reversal of the judgment is that the evidence in the cause does not sustain the finding of the court.

We think there can be no doubt as to the correctness of the finding and decree of the court as to Davis. He had no right to take the gas of the appellant, which was its property, without compensation, against the will and without the consent of the directors. The consent of the appellants-gave him no such authority. In determining whether the decree should have been against the appellants also it must be remembered that they and Davis were joint wrongdoers. It was proper practice, therefore, we think, to sue them jointly. It is not true, as assumed ^y them, that in granting to Davis the privilege of taking the appellee’s gas without compensation they had done all that they could or intended to-do. They, as a part of the representatives of the company, were still consenting to this wrongful appropriation of the property which they held as trustees of the stockholders of the corporation. For these reasons, among others that could be given, we think it was proper to render a joint decree against them and Davis to prevent the threatened wrong set out in the complaint.

Judgment affirmed.
#### H. D. Owens, et al., *v.*Michael Smith.

Lease Contract — Failure to Get Possession.

A lessor cannot be permitted to obtain an advantage by reason of bis own wrong in not surrendering possession of leased premises to bis lessee, wben be bas agreed to do so.

APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

October 1, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

There is no evidence that the contract for the rent of what is described as the Watkins place was entered into between Warfield and appellee with any intention on the part of either of them to hinder or obstruct any of Warfield’s creditors in the collection of their debts. McGill and Geehogan appear to have been indemnified as his sureties, or at least they accepted the security he gave them as ample indemnity, although the land mortgaged to them had been leased to appellee before the mortgage was executed, of which they had at the time actual notice.

The stipulation in the contract that appellee failed to get possession of the Watkins place at the time designated, cannot be so construed as to make it operative for the benefit of appellants; such *110was not the intention, and if he can avail himself of it he would thereby *get*a premium for failing to surrender possession of the place at the time he was bound by the terms of his contract with Warfield to do. Appellant is not prejudiced by the judgment and the same is *affirmed.*

*Brown & Murray, for appellants.*

*Montgomery & Wilson, for appellee.*
## United States Court of App eals F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 29 47

__ __ __ __ __ _ Jo sh ua J. Is rael , *
* Pet it io ne r, *
*
v. * Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n * Ord er o f th e Uni te d S ta te s * Dep art m en t o f Lab or
. Dep art m en t o f Lab or , Adm in is tra ti ve * Rev ie w Boa rd , * [UNPUBLISHED] * Res po nd en t. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: May 7, 20 12 Fi le d: May 10, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.

Jo sh ua J. Is rael fil ed an ad m in is tra ti ve co m pl ai nt , al le gi ng th at hi s em pl oyer ret al ia te d ag ai ns t hi m fo r en ga gi ng in act iv it i es pr ot ect ed un de r th e Su rfac e Tran sp or ta ti on Ass is ta nc e Act. An ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge reco m m en de d de nyin g Is rael ’s co m

pl ai nt

. The Un it ed St at es Dep art m en t of L ab or Adm in is tra ti ve Rev ie w Bo ard (ARB) rev ie wed t h e ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge ’s reco m m en da ti on an d is su ed a fi na l d eci si on de nyin g Is rael ’s com pl ai nt . Isra el pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w.Hav in g care fu ll y rev ie wed th e reco rd , we co nc lu de th at th e ARB’s de ci si on is

no t arbi tra ry , cap ric io us , an ab us e of di sc ret io n, co nt rary to th e la w, or un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce in th e r e c o rd

. See 49 U.S.C. § 31 10 5( d) (ap pe ll at e co ur t
rev ie ws ARB’s de ci si on pu rs ua nt to Adm in is tra ti ve Pro ced ur e Act (APA)); 5 U.S.C. § 70 6( 2) (rev ie win g co ur t sh al l ho ld un la wfu l an d se t as id e ag en cy de ci si on s if th ey
are fo un d to be arb it rary, cap ri c i o us , ab us e of di sc ret io n, or ot he rwis e no t in

acco rd an ce wit h la w, or if un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce in reco rd as who le );

se e al so R&B Tran sp ., LLC v. U.S. Dep ’t of Lab or , Adm in

. Rev ie w Bd ., 61 8 F.3 d 37 , 44 (1 st Ci r. 20 10 ) (ARB’s fin al de ci si on is rev ie wed in acco rd an ce wit h APA). Acco rd in gl y , we den y

th e p et it io n. Se e 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
IB 

Union Calendar No. 19 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1603 

[Report No. 118–31] 

To repeal provisions of Public Law 117–169 relating to taxpayer subsidies 

for home electrification, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2023 

Mrs. RODGERS of Washington introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

MARCH 28, 2023 

Reported from the Committee on Energy and Commerce; committed to the 

Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered 

to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1603 RH

A BILL 

To repeal provisions of Public Law 117–169 relating to 

taxpayer subsidies for home electrification, and for other 

purposes. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1603 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Homeowner Energy 

5 Freedom Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HOMEOWNER ENERGY FREEDOM. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—The following are repealed: 

8 (1) Section 50122 of Public Law 117–169 (42 

9 U.S.C. 18795a) (relating to a high-efficiency electric 

10 home rebate program). 

11 (2) Section 50123 of Public Law 117–169 (42 

12 U.S.C. 18795b) (relating to State-based home en13 ergy efficiency contractor training grants). 

14 (3) Section 50131 of Public Law 117–169 (136 

15 Stat. 2041) (relating to assistance for latest and 

16 zero building energy code adoption). 

17 (b) RESCISSIONS.—The unobligated balances of any 

18 amounts made available under each of sections 50122, 

19 50123, and 50131 of Public Law 117–169 (42 U.S.C. 

20 18795a, 18795b; 136 Stat. 2041) (as in effect on the day 

21 before the date of enactment of this Act) are rescinded. 

22 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

23 50121(c)(7) of Public Law 117–169 (42 U.S.C. 

24 18795(c)(7)) is amended by striking ‘‘, including a rebate 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 1603 RH

1 provided under a high-efficiency electric home rebate pro2 gram (as defined in section 50122(d)),’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 19 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1603 

[Report No. 118–31] 

A BILL 

To repeal provisions of Public Law 117–169 relatand for other purposes. ing to taxpayer subsidies for home electrification, 

MARCH 28, 2023 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS