alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Huston & Mulligan *v.*John R. Blackwell.

Attorney’s Fees — Value of Legal Services.

In determining the value of legal services rendered by an attorney, the magnitude of the case and the importance of the questions involved, as well as the ability and skill of counsel in conducting it, and the benefits the client has derived by reason of the employment, must all enter into the estimate of the value of such services.

APPEAL FROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 16, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor :

The preponderance of testimony is not only with the appellants as to the amount and value of the services rendered by them, but the verdict of the jury is against all the evidence in the case. The low*440est estimate placed on the value of the services rendered is by a witness for the appellee. This witness fixes the value at $500, yet the jury rendered a verdict for only three hundred dollars. The principal object of the litigation was to rescind a contract for the sale of real estate of the value of near twenty thousand dollars, upon which seven thousand dollars had been paid.

*W. B. Smith & Huston &*Mulligan, *for appellants.*

*Chenault &*Bennett, *por appellee.*

Huston, one of the firm of Huston & Mulligan, residing in the city of Lexington, was employed to aid resident counsel in the prosecution of the case. His long experience in the practice of his profession, as well as his acknowledged ability as a lawyer, was the inducement for employing him on a case of vital importance to the appellee. The services were rendered by him in conjunction with associate counsel not only in the court below, but in this court, resulting-in the successful prosecution of the action by the appellee in both courts. The witnesses in the case were all lawyers in full practice, and many, of them conversant with the history of the litigation in which the services were rendered. Their testimony, standing uncontradicted, was all the light the jury had in leading them'to a conclusion as to the value of the services rendered. The mere physical or mechanical labor performed by counsel, the value of which the jury might of their own knowledge determine, is entitled to but little consideration in ascertaining the value of the services in a case like this. The magnitude of the case and the importance of the questions involved, as well as the ability and skill of counsel in conducting it, and the benefits the client has derived by reason of the employment, must all enter into the estimate to be made of the value of the services performed.

The judgment of the court below is *reversed,*and cause remanded with directions to award a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Cash Plus                                                  
V Financial Statements for the nine months ended September 30, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,554,350<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,176<F2>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,586,526
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          336,431
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,250,095<F3>
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,586,526
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               534,152<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               129,018
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                165,522<F5>
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   239,612<F6>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F6>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F6>
<FN>
<F1>Includes cash and cash equivalents of $568,171 and investments in commercial
paper of A$2,986,179.
<F2>Includes all receivables of the Partnership included in "Other Assets" on 
the Balance Sheet.
<F3>Equity of General Partners ($125,356), Limited Partners $3,375,449.
<F4>Includes interest income of $402,227 and Partnership's share of Joint 
Venture net income of $131,925.
<F5>Includes Gain on sale of MBS of $25,930 and Loss on dissolution of Joint
Venture of ($191,452).
<F6>Net Income allocated $2,136 to General Partners and $237,476 to the 
Limited Partners.  Net Income per unit is $12 on 2,060,450 Units outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
United States Department of Com

National Institute of Standards and Technolo

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For: 

Virginia 

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, anddemonstrated 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 Volume Transfer, II 20 kg to 1 mg 10 gal to 5 gal Mass Echelon III Tuning Forks 25 kg to 1 mg 2500 lb to 0.001 lb 8 oz to 0.03125 oz 

10 kHz to 1 kHz ___________

Katrice LippNIST Office 

Weight Carts Effective Date6000 lb to 3000 lb 

(Rev.: September 2021)
#### Hong MAI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John DOE, Manager or Supervisor, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Vermont Service Center; Immigration and Naturalization Service, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 00-6234.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 15, 2001.

Hong Mai, New York, NY, for appellant.

Scott Dunn, Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, for appellees.

Present NEWMAN, CABRANES, Circuit Judges, THOMPSON, District Judge.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.

In the District Court, plaintiff-appellant Hong Mai sought a waiver of certain portions of the naturalization test administered by defendant Immigration and Naturalization Service (“the waiver”). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and the District Court granted their motion. Judgment was entered accordingly, and this timely appeal followed. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

By declarations dated April 29, 2001, the parties informed us that appellant was naturalized on February 9, 2001 and is now a United States citizen. Accordingly, appellant’s request for the waiver is now moot. *See generally Calderon v. Moore,*518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (“an appeal should ... be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant”).

We have considered appellant’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit.

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Adolphus NUNES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-1120.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued May 10, 2001.

Decided May 11, 2001.

Before POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.

Order

Defendant, who has been convicted of illegal reentry following deportation, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), contends that the 100-month sentence he received violates principles articulated in *Apprendi v.. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because the indictment did not charge, and the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt, the prior felony conviction that raised the maximum sentence to which he was exposed. This argument collides with the holding of *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Nunes contends that *Apprendi*requires a reevaluation of *Almendarez-Torres.*Perhaps that is so, but a court of appeals is not the forum authorized to conduct that reexamination. The Supreme Court insists that its decisions be followed unless overruled. *Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres,*so we are obliged to apply it.

Affirmed
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 10-K/A
  þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)  OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Commission File Number: 1-15157
 PACTIV CORPORATION
  Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation or organization)
    
    36-2552989
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)1900 West Field Court 
Lake Forest, Illinois
(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    60045
(Zip
Code)
 847) 482-2000
  Title
of each class
    
    Name of each Exchange
on which registeredCommon Stock ($.01 par value) and associated Preferred 
Stock Purchase Rights
    
    New York Stock Exchange
   þ o
  o þ
 þ o
 o o
 o
  Large Accelerated Filer þ
    
    Accelerated Filer o
    
    Non-Accelerated Filer o
    
    Smaller Reporting Company o
 o þ
  Class of Voting Stock and Number of Shares 
Held by Non-Affiliates at June 30, 2009
    
    Market Value of Common Stock held by
Non-AffiliatesCommon Stock 131,840,454 shares
    
    $2,860,937,852
  Documents Incorporated by Reference:
 Document
    
    Part of the Form 10-K
into which incorporatedPactiv Corporations Definitive Proxy Statement for
    
    Part IIIthe Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held May 14, 2010




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement SchedulesIndex of ExhibitsSIGNATURESEX-23.1    Table of Contents    
 Item 15.
    
    Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules
 
 Index of Exhibits
  Exhibit No.
    
    Description23.1
    
    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP.




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  PACTIV CORPORATIONBy:
    /s/ RICHARD L. WAMBOLDRichard L. WamboldChairman, President and 
Chief Executive Officer   Signature
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ RICHARD L. WAMBOLD
    
    Chairman, President, Chief Executive
    
    June 4, 2010Richard L. Wambold
    
    Officer and Director (principal
executive officer)/s/ EDWARD T. WALTERS
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief
    
    June 4, 2010Edward T. Walters
    
    Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)/s/ DONALD E. KING
    
    Corporate Controller and Chief
    
    June 4, 2010Donald E. King
    
    Accounting Officer (principle accounting officer)/s/ LARRY D. BRADY*
    
    Director
    
    June 4, 2010Larry D. Brady/s/ K. DANE BROOKSHER*
    
    Director
    
    June 4, 2010K. Dane Brooksher/s/ ROBERT J. DARNALL*
    
    Director
    
    June 4, 2010Robert J. Darnall/s/ MARY R. (NINA) HENDERSON*
    
    Director
    
    June 4, 2010Mary R. (Nina) Henderson/s/ N. THOMAS LINEBARGER*
    
    Director
    
    June 4, 2010N. Thomas Linebarger/s/ ROGER B. PORTER*
    
    Director
    
    June 4, 2010Roger B. Porter/s/ NORMAN H. WESLEY*
    
    Director
    
    June 4, 2010Norman H. Wesley
 
 *
    By:
    /s/ JOSEPH E. DOYLE
    
    
    
    June 4, 2010Joseph E. DoyleAttorney-in-fact
Exhibit 10.3


 


STOCK ASSIGNMENT
SEPARATE FROM CERTIFICATE


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
FRED TANNOUS ("Assignor") does hereby assign and transfer all right of Assignor’s right, title and
interest in ONE MILLION (1,000,000) shares of Series B Preferred Stock of ROWL, INC., a Nevada corporation (the "Company")
standing in Assignor’s name on the books of said Company (including on the books of the Company’s transfer agent),
to the Company (“Assignee”) and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint Bill Glaser to transfer ownership
of the said stock on the books of the Company to Assignee. (This assignment covers all such Series B Preferred Stock standing
in Assignor’s name on the books of the Company, regardless of whether or not such shares are electronically certificated
and whether any such certificate is delivered to the Company.)


 


	/s/ Fred Tannous	 
	FRED TANNOUS 	 


 


DATED: MAY 6 , 2015
<Page>

Exhibit 21.1

<Table>
<Caption>

                                          State or Other Jurisdiction of
    Exact Name of Registrant as                  Incorporation of
      Specified in its Charter                     Organization
---------------------------------------   ------------------------------
<S>                                            <C>
Radio Unica Corp.                               Delaware
Blaya Inc.                                      Delaware
Oro Spanish Broadcasting Inc.                   Delaware
Radio Unica Network, Inc.                       Delaware
Radio Unica Chicago, Inc.                       Delaware
Radio Unica of Chicago License Corp.            Delaware
Radio Unica of Dalias, Inc.                     Delaware
Radio Unica of Dallas License Corp.             Delaware
Radio Unica of Denver, Inc.                     Delaware
Radio Unica of Denver License Corp.             Delaware
Radio Unica of Fresno, Inc.                     Delaware
Radio Unica of Fresno License Corp.             Delaware
Radio Unica of Houston License Corp.            Delaware
Radio Unica of Los Angeles, Inc.
Radio Unica of Los Angeles License Corp.        Delaware
Radio Unica of McAllen, Inc.                    Delaware
Radio Unica of McAllen License Corp.            Delaware
Radio Unica of Miami, Inc.                      Delaware
Radio Unica of Miami License Corp.              Delaware
Radio Unica of New York, Inc.                   Delaware
Radio Unica of New York License Corp.           Delaware
Radio Unica of Phoenix, Inc.                    Delaware
Radio Unica of Phoenix License Corp.            Delaware
Radio Unica of Sacremento, Inc.                 Delaware
Radio Unica of Sacremento License Corp.         Delaware
Radio Unica of San Antonio, Inc.                Delaware
Radio Unica of San Antonio License Corp.
Radio Unica of San Diego, Inc.                  Delaware
Radio Unica of San Diego License Corp.          Delaware
Radio Unica of San Francisco Inc.               Delaware
Radio Unica of San Francisco License Corp.      Delaware
Radio Unica Sales Corp.                         Delaware
Radio Unica of Tucson, Inc.                     Delaware
Radio Unica of Tucson License Corp.             Delaware
Mass Promotions, Inc.                           Delaware
</Table>

                                       84
NO. 07-08-0238-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	FEBRUARY 27, 2009

	______________________________

	CALLIE N. LONG, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

	NO. 2003-404322; HONORABLE BRADLEY UNDERWOOD, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	On June 3, 2008, appellant, Callie N. Long, filed a notice of appeal from a conviction for failure to stop and render aid and the resulting sentence of six months in county jail.  The clerk’s record was filed on July 9 and the reporter’s record was filed on August 5.  

	Since that time, this Court has granted four extensions of time for filing appellant’s brief.  The appellate clerk has also sent two late notices and informed appellant that the failure to comply with the imposed deadline to file the brief may result in the appeal being abated and the cause being remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b).  The Court last extended the due date to February 6, 2009.  As of this date, appellant’s brief has not been filed.

	Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.  See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3).  On remand, the trial court shall conduct a hearing pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2) and (3) to: (1) determine whether appellant desires to prosecute her appeal; (2) determine whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal; and (3) to make appropriate findings and recommendations.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2).  Should it be determined that appellant does want to continue the appeal and the court determines that present counsel should be replaced, the name, address, telephone number, and state bar number of the newly-appointed or newly-retained counsel shall be provided to the Clerk of this Court.

	 The trial court is directed to: (1) conduct any necessary hearings; (2) make and file appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law, and recommendations and cause them to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record; (3) cause the hearing proceedings to be transcribed and included in a supplemental reporter’s record; (4) have a record of the proceedings made to the extent any of the proceedings are not included in the supplemental clerk’s record or the supplemental reporter’s record; and (5) cause the records of the proceedings to be sent to this Court.  Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3).  In the absence of a request for extension of time from the trial court, the supplemental clerk’s record, supplemental reporter’s record, and any additional proceeding records, including any orders, findings, conclusions, and recommendations, are to be filed by March 27, 2009. 

	It is so ordered. 

								Per Curiam

	Do not publish.
#### James Burden, et al., *v.*James B. Throckmorton.

Partition.

Where the owner of three-fourths interest in a tract of four hundred twenty-six acres of ground sells his interest, and instead of conveying his undivided interest, conveys a stated number of acres which was assumed to be his whole interest, bis purchaser will not be disturbed in the land he received provided it is found in a partition proceeding that the remaining one-fourth interest in value can be carved out of the tract not conveyed to such purchaser.

*300APPEAL PROM ROBERTSON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 13, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

There is nothing in the record showing that Mordecai Throckmorton was ever divested of title to his interest in the tract of land claimed by appellants. He may have received more of his father’s estate than the other children, but there has been no settlement of the estate or any proof exhibited showing its character or value. The death of one of the children left the land in controversy to be divided between the four surviving children, Mordecai being one of them. At the time he sold to Burden he was the owner of one-fourth of the whole tract of land, that contained in all four hundred twenty-six acres, and shortly after the sale acquired by purchase the interest of two of his brothers, by which he became the absolute owner of three-fourths of the whole tract. This title to three-fourths of the laud Mordecai obtained prior to the conveyance made to the other appellants. The conveyance to Burden defined the boundary of his purchase, leaving three hundred twenty-six acres of land out of which to allot to appellee his one-fourth interest. There was then no reason for disturbing the sale of the land to Burden, or in requiring him to account for rents, unless the one hundred acres conveyed to him was worth greatly more (not including the value of the improvements placed upon the land by him) than the remaining portion of the tract.

The chancellor, under the circumstances, ought not to disturb Burden’s purchase unless it is made to appear that an equal division of the land cannot be made without it, and as one-fourth of the whole tract is only to be allotted, Mordecai having owned the other three-fourths, we see no reason for depriving Burden of any part of his purchase. As to the other appellants, they must abide the loss, if any. There was never any adverse holding on the part of their vendor.

The judgment below is therefore *affirmed*as to all the appellants but James Burden; and as to him the judgment is *reversed*and cause remanded, with directions to allot to the appellee his interest out of the three hundred twenty-six acres, if by so doing he can obtain his one-fou.rth in value of the land. The appellee is entitled to his costs *301against the appellants, except Burden, and he has his judgment for costs against appellee.

*J. A. Buckler, J. & J. W. Rodman, for appellants.*

*B. G. Willis, for appellee.*
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 annual report on Form 10-K of Huntsman International LLC (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



|/s/PETER. R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
OfficerMarch 14, 2005 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
10751.

#### Childs *v.*The State.

Decided November 4, 1919.

I-ndictment for murder—conviction of manslaughter; from Putnam superior court—Judge Park. June 7, 1919..

*Davidson & Callaway,*for plaintiff in error.

*Doyle Campbell, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, T.

The court did not err in charging the jury on voluntary manslaughter. There is ample evidence to support the verdict; and the motion for new trial was properly overruled.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, G. J., and Lulce, J., concur.*