alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Hackworth *v.*William R. Thompson, et al.

Attachment — Sale of Real Estate Under Attachment — Description.

A judicial sale of real estate attached, sold by order of the judgment, is void where no specific description of the real estate is included in the judgment.

APPEAL PROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.

January 26, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

By the return of the sheriff it appears that the attachment was levied on 1,200 acres of land on Briery Creek in Lewis County in the possession of John Plackworth. In the judgment the land is described precisely as it is in the return on the attachment. The levy *586made by the officer would be sufficient to create a lien on the land. But a specific description is not given in the judgment. The master must go on Briery Creek in Lewis County, and inquire where the 1,200 acres of land are located which Hackworth had in possession on the ist of December, 1868; and if his information be correct on such inquiry, he may sell the right tract of land; but if he is misinformed he may sell an entirely different tract, and the land of some other person. Before the judgment of sale is rendered the court should have sent his master out with the surveyor, if need be, and have the 1,200 acres, of land that the sheriff levied said attachment on, identified by metes and bounds, and report the same to the court; and the judgment then should contain the description of the land as reported, so that the commissioner could, with the judgment, go on the land and explain to bidders and purchasers the land to be sold, its form, location, mid identity.

*W. H. Cord, for appellant. A. Duvall, for appellees.*

The question as to the homestead right is not raised by the pleadings, and of course not adjudicated by the court below, and this court therefore has nothing to do with it on this appeal.

But for the reasons stated the judgment of the court below is *reversed,*and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Exhibit 10.35

SECOND AMENDMENT  TO  HUNTSMAN SUPPLEMENTAL SAVINGS PLAN

This Second Amendment to the HUNTSMAN SUPPLEMENTAL SAVINGS PLAN (the "Plan") is entered into this 7th day of November 2007.

WHEREAS,
the parties restated the Plan effective July 1, 2005 and amended the Plan by a First Amendment dated November 10, 2006; and

WHEREAS,
the parties desire to make an additional change in the Plan in compliance with the final regulations under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code and the transitional
relief thereunder.

NOW,
THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

1.Effective July 1, 2007, a new paragraph is added at the end of Article VI of the Plan, reading as follows:



2.The provisions of this Second Amendment shall supersede the terms of the Plan to the extent those terms are inconsistent
with this First Amendment.

DATED
the day and year first above written.

| |  | HUNTSMAN INTERNATIONAL LLC
| |  | --------------------------
| |  | By:                       
| |  |                           

---



QuickLinks
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 16, 2020

Order 

Clerk

November 16, 2020

162121(6)

In re CERTIFIED QUESTIONS FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

________________________________________ 

AFT MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff, SC: 162121

v USDC-ED: 4:17-cv-13292 

PROJECT VERITAS, et al.,

Defendants,

and

MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Intervening Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the joint motion and stipulation of the parties to 

establish a briefing schedule is GRANTED. The adjusted briefing schedule is as follows: 

(1) The primary briefs of plaintiff and the Attorney General in support of the plaintiff’s 

position are due on December 23, 2020; (2) the primary briefs of defendants and the 

Attorney General in support of the defendants’ position are due on January 27, 2021; and 

(3) the reply briefs of the plaintiff and the Attorney General in support of the plaintiff’s 

position are due on February 17, 2021.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

GLYNIS BETHEL, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : Civil Action 10-0142-WS-C 

JUDY A. NEWCOMB, et al., :

 Defendants. : 

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby 

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE this 19th day of July, 2010. 

 s/WILLIAM H. STEELE 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00142-WS-C Document 8 Filed 07/19/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
      10.4





Terms
      of
      Employment Arrangement


between
      Bay National Bank


and
      Mark
      A. Semanie





Mr.
      Semanie is employed on an at will basis at a rate of pay of $180,000 as of
      January 1, 2006. Mr. Semanie is also eligible for incentive bonuses at the
      discretion of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors, and is
      entitled to all benefits available to full time employees of Bay National Bank.





The
      Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Bank approved
      discretionary bonuses to Mr. Semanie of $30,000 in December 2003 ,
      $40,000
      in December 2004 and $60,000 in December 2005, respectively. These bonuses
      were
      paid in the subsequent calendar year.
**EXHIBIT 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.333-143766, 333-132553, 333-124382, 333-118905, 333-96889, 333-48560, 333-41648 and 333-88817)pertaining to the 2006 Stock Incentive Plan, 1996 Stock Plan, 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan,1999 Directors’ Stock Option Plan and 2000 Non-Executive Stock Option Plan of Foundry Networks,Inc. of our reports dated February 26, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsand schedule of Foundry Networks, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting of Foundry Networks, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedDecember 31, 2007./s/ERNST & YOUNG LLPSan Jose, California
Exhibit 32.2



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 on Form 10-Q of Aphton Corporation
(the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frederick W. Jacobs, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Chief
Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: November 14, 2003



By:

/s/    Frederick W. JacobsFrederick W. JacobsVice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
No. D-692.

#### In re Disbarment of Kalk.

It is ordered that Joseph Kalk, of Beachwood, Ohio, be suspended from the practice of law in this Court and that a rule issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Page 1

NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION SAFETY TEAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE (NCSTAC) MEETING

10-11 DECEMBER 2013

ADVANCED MEASUREMENT LABORATORY (AML) BUILDING (215) CONFERENCE ROOM C103-C106

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS & TECHNOLOGY (NIST)

100 BUREAU DRIVE

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

AGENDA

MEETING GOALS: 

• Receive NIST’s response to the Committee’s 2012 annual report recommendations

• Receive update on NIST Technical Investigation of the May 22, 2011 Tornado in Joplin, MO

• Receive NIST Disaster and Failure Studies Program update 

• Outline Committee’s 2013 annual report to Congress and assign writing assignments for sections

Tuesday, 10 December

Time Topic Discussion Leader

Opening Remarks

8:30 – 8:45 am Meeting Goals

Agenda

Jeremy Isenberg

Senior Principal, AECOM

NCSTAC Chairperson

8:45 – 9:00 am Welcome

Opening Remarks

Willie May

Associate Director for

 Laboratory Programs, NIST

9:00 – 9:30 am NIST’s Response to NCSTAC’s 2012 Annual 

Report Recommendations

Howard Harary

Acting Director

Engineering Laboratory, NIST

Designated Federal Officer 

Joplin Tornado Report

9:30 – 9:40 am Overview Marc Levitan

Joplin Team Leader

Engineering Laboratory, NIST

9:40 – 10:30 am Chapter 2 and Associated Findings

Tornado Hazard Characteristics

Frank Lombardo

Joplin Task Leader

Engineering Laboratory, NIST

10:30 – 10:45 am BREAK

10:45 – 11:35 am Chapter 3 and Associated Findings

Performance of Buildings, Designated Safe

Long Phan

Joplin Task Leader

Engineering Laboratory, NIST

11:35 am – 12:25

pm

Chapter 4 and Associated Findings

Emergency Communications & Public Response

Erica Kuligowski

Joplin Task Leader

Engineering Laboratory, NIST
Page 2

12:25 – 1:30 pm LUNCH (NIST Cafeteria, Administration Building, Dining Rooms A & B)

1:30 – 2:45 pm Joplin Tornado Report Recommendations Erica Kuligowski

2:45 – 3:00 pm BREAK

3:00 – 4:45 pm Recommendations (continued) Erica Kuligowski

4:45 – 5:00 pm Public Input Period Jeremy Isenberg

5:00 pm ADJOURN for the Day 

Wednesday, 11 December

Time Topic Discussion Leader

Disaster and Failure Studies Program Updates

8:30 – 10:00 am Disaster and Failure Studies Overview

• Decision Criteria Update

• Recent Disasters

Disaster and Failure Events Data Repository

• Update on progress since last meeting

• Plans for FY 2014

Eric Letvin

Director, Disaster and 

 Failure Studies Program

Engineering Laboratory, NIST

10:00 – 10:15 am BREAK

NCSTAC Discussions

10:15 am – 12:15 

pm

NCSTAC Preparation of Annual Report to 

Congress

• Impact on NCST Program

Jeremy Isenberg

12:15 – 12:30 pm Identification of Topics for Next Meeting Jeremy Isenberg

12:30 pm ADJOURN

12:30 – 1:30 pm LUNCH – optional (NIST Cafeteria, West Wing, Administration Building)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 08-00361-KD

)

KIZZIE WATKINS ANDERSON, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on defendant’s motion to withdraw guilty plea (doc. 37)

and the response filed by the United States (doc. 39). Defendant moves the Court to allow her to 

withdraw her plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment wherein she is charged with

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute hydrocodone, a Schedule II controlled substance,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The United States does not object to the motion to withdraw. 

As grounds for the motion, defendant sets forth that when she entered her plea of guilty

to Count One, the parties were not aware that the controlled substance involved, Lortab (a

prescription medication containing hydrocodone and acetaminophen), was a Schedule III

controlled substance but not a Schedule II controlled substance as charged in the Indictment. 

Defendant argues that there is no factual basis for a plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute a “Schedule II” controlled substance and she should be allowed to withdraw her plea.

Upon consideration, the Court finds that defendant has shown a “fair and just reason” for

the withdrawal of her guilty plea. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B) (“A defendant may withdraw a

plea of guilty . . . [if] the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the

withdrawal.”). Therefore, the motion to withdraw guilty plea is GRANTED.

DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of May, 2010.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cr-00361-KD-M Document 44 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 24


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                    FORM 10-K FOR YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998

    The undersigned  directors and officers of NATIONAL COMPUTER  SYSTEMS,  INC.
hereby  constitute  and  appoint  J. W.  Fenton,  Jr.,  their  true  and  lawful
attorney-in-fact and agent, for each of them and in their name, place and stead,
in any and all capacities  (including  without  limitation,  as Director  and/or
principal Executive Officer,  principal Financial Officer,  principal Accounting
Officer or any other officer of the Company),  to sign its Annual Report on Form
10-K  for the year  ended  January  31,  1998,  which  is to be  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission,  with all exhibits thereto, and any and all
documents in connection  therewith,  hereby granting unto said  attorney-in-fact
and agent full power and authority to do and perform any and all acts and things
requisite and necessary to be done, and hereby ratifying and confirming all that
said attorney-in-fact and agent may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

    IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned have hereunto set their hands this 3rd
day of March, 1998.

 /s/  Russell A. Gullotti                     /s/  Stephen G. Shank
-------------------------                    -------------------------
      Russell A. Gullotti                          Stephen G. Shank

 /s/  David C. Cox                            /s/  John E. Steuri
-------------------------                    -------------------------
      David C. Cox                                 John E. Steuri

 /s/  Jean B. Keffeler                        /s/  John W. Vessey
-------------------------                    -------------------------
      Jean B. Keffeler                             John W. Vessey

 /s/  Moses Joseph                            /s/  Jeffrey W. Taylor
-------------------------                    -------------------------
      Moses Joseph                                 Jeffrey W. Taylor

 /s/  Charles W. Oswald
-------------------------
      Charles W. Oswald
**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**Washington, D.C. 20549**

 

**FORM l0-Q**

 

|   | (Mark One) |
|--------|------------|

| x | **QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934** |
|---|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2007**

 

**OR**

 

| o | **TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934** |
|---|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**For the transition period from ________ to __________**

 

Commission file number 000-17248

 

**OWENS MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FUND,**

**a California Limited Partnership**

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

 

| California                               |   | 68-0023931                           |
|------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction             |   | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
| of incorporation or organization)        |   |                                 |
|                                     |   |                                 |
| 2221 Olympic Boulevard                   |   |                                 |
| Walnut Creek, California                 |   | 94595                                |
| (Address of principal executive offices) |   | (Zip Code)                           |
|                                     |   |                                 |
| (925) 935-3840                           |   |                                 |
| Registrant’s telephone number,      |   |                                 |
| including area code                      |   |                                 |

 

**NOT APPLICABLE**

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x  No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

| Large accelerated filer o | Accelerated filer o | Non-accelerated filer x |
|---------------------------|---------------------|-------------------------|

 

|   | Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Yes [   | ] No x |
|-------------------|--------|

 

1

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000840459
<NAME> AEI REAL ESTATE FUND XVIII LTD PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,791,718
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,214
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,793,932
<PP&E>                                      13,615,781
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,294,125)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,115,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          379,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,736,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,115,588
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               790,694
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  344,317
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                822,839
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            822,839
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   822,839
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    37.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    37.43
        

</TABLE>
#### Williams *v.*The Greensburgh and Columbus Turnpike Company et al.

For the points decided in this case, see Hopkins v. The Greensburgh, etc. Turnpike Company, 40 Ind. 44; The Greensburgh, etc., Turnpike Company, v. Sidener, 40 Ind. 424; Manford v. The Pleasant Grove, etc., Turnpike Co., *iost,*p. 293; and Pavy v. The Greensburgh, etc., Turnpike Company, *post,*p. 400.

APPEAL from the Decatur Common Pleas.

Osborn, C. J.

We have read the record in this case, and it is covered by *Hopkins*v. *The Greensburgh, etc., Turnpike Company,*40 Ind. 44; *The Greensburgh, etc., Turnpike Company*v. *Sidener,*40 Ind. 424; *Manford*v. *The Pleasant Grove, etc., Turnpike Company, post.*p. 293; *Pavy v. The Greensburgh, etc., Turnpike Company, post,*p.400. The first two cases cited were thoroughly considered, and have been followed and adhered to. We think the question of estoppel should be considered as settled on that state of facts in such cases. The other cases settled the question of the power of the board of equalization in the appellate court to assess lands omitted by the assessors. We held that they had no such power. We still adhere to the rulings in those cases, and do not think any useful purpose can be accomplished by reconsidering them.

Counsel for the appellee desire us to distinguish this case from those. They seem to think that the averments in the answer in the case at bar are such as to estop the appellant from setting up and relying upon the facts alleged in his complaint. The answer relied upon alleges that certain things were done by each of the parties after the defective assessment was made and filed, and then avers, “that said plaintiff had full knowledge of said facts, stood by,” etc. That is far from being an averment that he had knowledge of the omission to assess all the lands liable. “ Said facts ” referred to such as had been mentioned in the answer.

The failure to aver knowledge of the omission to include all the lands liable to be assessed, was the point upon which' *172the *Sidener*case turned. That was a much stronger case in favor of an estoppel than the one at bar.

*y. S. Scobey*and *O. B. Scobey,*for appellant.

*y. Gavin*and *y. D. Miller,*for appellees.

The appellees have pleaded in bar of the appeal, that since the appeal, and since filing the transcript, the appellant attended an election for directors of the company, and voted the whole amount of the tax assessed against him.

The facts alleged cannot affect the errors of the court below. They do not release or waive them. What effect such acts will have upon the appellant’s case, on the next trial, if properly pleaded, *puis darrein continuance,*is quite another thing. That question is not before us, and we intimate no opinion upon it either way.

The judgment of the said common pleas court is reversed, with costs, with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the first paragraph of the answer of said appellee, and for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
10852.

#### CULBERSON *v.*THE STATE.

Where a motion for a new trial is based only on the usual general grounds, this court can not intei'fero with the judgment of the trial judge overruling the motion, if there is any evidence, however slight, to support the verdict.

Decided November 4, 1919.

Indictment for possession of intoxicating liquor; from Harris superior court—Judge Howard. July 36, 1919.

*J. B. Burnside,*for plaintiff in error.

*G. F. McLaughlin, solicitor-general,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

“In this ease the motion for a new trial contained only the usual general grounds. There was some slight *353
      *evidence*authorizing the verdict; and the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court" a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of the evidence, the trial judge has a wide discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court.” *Bradham*v. *State,*21 *Ga. App.*510 (94 S. E. 618), and cases cited.

*Judgment affirmed.*

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