alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### A. P. Thomas et al. *v.*H. P. Bennett's Heirs et al.

Clerks of Courts — Failure to Perform Duty.

The clerk of a court should not be permitted to stultify himself by swearing that he failed to perform his duty, and will not be permitted to do so if there is any evidence to the contrary.

APPEAL PROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 22, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The wife consented to the sale of the land and united with the husband in the conveyance to Thomas. This may have been done under the agreement that twelve hundred dollars of the proceeds *459should belong to the husband and the .remainder to the wife to dispose of as she pleased. There is no proof, however, of any such agreement. The statements in the petition of the wife can not be regarded as evidence in the case, nor can her statements made to others in the absence of the husband be regarded as competent. The object the husband had in view may have been to secure the property or its proceeds to himself. This he had the right to do unless he practiced a fraud on the wife in order to obtain it.. The vendee, Thomas, although not possessed of much wealth, seems to have been an active business man; and from the evidence we can not say that his purchase was for the husband and not himself. If the statements made by the wife are taken from the record, there is no proof whatever of anything improper on the part of the husband. He seems to have been kind and affectionate'to the wife, and as between himself and those claiming, his right to the notes is by no means inferior to that of the appellees.

*Muir & Wickliffe, for appellants.*

*Gvrgsby, for appellees.*

A clerk should not be permitted to stultify himself by swearing that he failed to discharge his duty, and will not be, where there is any evidence to the contrary. The evidence taken in connection with the certificate of the clerk conduces to show that the husband was not present when the deed was signed and acknowledged by the wife.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded with directions to adjudge the notes in controversy to be the property of the husband, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
#### Samuel Boslowitz, Appellant, *v.*S. Goldin & Co., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 9, 1925.

Trial — setting aside verdict — trial justice, having denied motion to set aside verdict at term at which action was tried, without power at expiration of term to set aside same verdict.

A trial justice, having heard and denied defendant’s motion to set aside a verdict in plaintiff’s favor at the term at which the action was tried, is without power, after the expiration of said term, to grant a subsequent motion to set aside said verdict, since, in fact, said motion was a rehearing of the original motion upon which judgment had been entered.

Appeal from an order, entered February 25, 1924, in the office of the clerk of the City Court of the City of New York, granting defendant’s motion to set aside a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff and for a new trial, and vacating and setting aside a judgment theretofore rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant in the sum of $2,118.92 entered upon a verdict, after a trial of the issues.

Appeal is also taken from an order, entered December 6, 1923, vacating said judgment and vacating and setting aside an order entered herein on November 26, 1923, which order denied defendant’s motion for a new trial.

*Morse S. Hirsch,*for the appellant.

*Snitkin & Goodman*[Abraham' *Goodman*of counsel], for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

The trial justice, having heard and denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict in plaintiff’s favor at the term at which the action was tried, and judgment having been entered, was without power to grant the defendant what was in effect a rehearing thereon after the expiration of the term at which the action was tried and upon such rehearing to grant the motion to set aside the verdict. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 549; *Clancy*v. *N.*Y., *N. H. & H. R. R. Co.,*226 N. Y. 213; *Ellis*v. *Hearn,*132 App. Div. 207.)

Order of February 25, 1924, reversed, with costs, and judgment reinstated. Appeal from order of December 6, 1923, dismissed.

All concur; present, Bijur, Mitchell and Proskauer, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Life Energy & Technology  Holdings,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 29, 2004, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Salim Ghafari , Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 result of  operations of the
Company.


By:/s/Salim Ghafari
-----------------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)

April 19, 2004
**Exhibit 21.1**

**GAIAM SUBSIDIARIES**

 
| **Subsidiaries**                   | ** ** | **State or Country of Incorporation or  Registration** |
|------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |       |                                                   |
| Gaiam Americas, Inc.          |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| Gaiam.com, Inc.               |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| Gaiam Direct, Inc.            |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| Gaiam Energy Tech, Inc.       |       | State of Colorado                                      |
| Gaiam International, Inc.     |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| Gaiam International II, Inc.  |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| Gaiam International III, Inc. |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| Gaiam Media, Inc.             |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| Gaiam Shared Services, Inc.   |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| Gaiam Travel, Inc.            |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| GT Media, Inc.                |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| GT Direct, Inc.               |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| Gaiam West, Inc.              |       | State of  California                                   |
| Real Goods Trading Corporation     |       | State of  California                                   |
| Gaiam International C.V.           |       | The Netherlands                                        |
| Gaiam International B.V.           |       | The Netherlands                                        |
| Gaiam Limited                      |       | United Kingdom                                         |
| Spiritual Cinema, Inc.             |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| Conscious Media, Inc.              |       | State of  Colorado                                     |
| Newmark Media, Ltd.                |       | State of  Illinois                                     |

 

----
11524.

#### PITTSBURG PLATE GLASS CO. *v.*AUSTIN

Decided July 14, 1920.

The verdict was authorized by evidence, and for no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Complaint; from Irwin superior court-—Judge Eve. March 31, 1920.

*Winfield Payne Jones, Melvin Meeks,*for plaintiff.

*Quincey & Rice,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

The plaintiff sued upon a promissory note, and the defendant pleaded that the note was given to suppress a criminal prosecution against one Hudson, an employee in the plaintiff’s office, who was alleged to be short in his accounts; and, further, that it was given with the express understanding that Hudson would be retained in the employ of the plaintiff, and that a certain sum would be deducted monthly from his salary and applied to the note, until payment of the note in full, but that immediately after the note was given he was peremptorily discharged from the plaintiff’s employment. The evidence for the plaintiff, if believed by the jury, would have authorized a verdict for it, and the evidence for the defendant would have authorized a verdict for him. The jury believed the defendant’s side of the case and found a verdict in accordance therewith. This verdict has the approval of the trial judge. The charge of the court was full and fair and submitted clearly the issues raised by the pleadings, and is not subject to the criticisms urged. For no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial. See *McConnell*v. *Cherokee National Bank,*18 *Ga. App. 52*(88 S. E. 824), and cases cited: *Jones*v. *Dannenburg,*112 *Ga.*426 (37 S. E. 729, 52 L. R. A. 271); *Wilson*v. *Carter,*4 *Ga. App.*349 (61 S. E. 494).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BERNICE MUHAMMAD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 1:10-CV-00096-SC

)

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

In accordance with the Memorandum of Opinion entered

contemporaneously herewith, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED

that Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 47, 48, 52, 55, 56, 58, 60, 62, 65,

66, 75, 76) are GRANTED in all respects. Plaintiff’s claims against Scott J.

Humphrey and Gregory M. Deitsch are also due to be dismissed for failure to

state a claim. The above-entitled action is, therefore, DISMISSED without

prejudice. Costs are taxed to the plaintiff.

Done this 6th day of July 2010.

____________

L. SCOTT COOGLER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

139297

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:10-cv-00096-SC-M Document 97 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 12.1
 Doral Financial Corporation
Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 For the six month period endedJune 30, 2010Including Interest on DepositsEarnings (Losses):Pre-tax loss from continuing operations
    
    $
    (229,798
    )Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    127,606Total Earnings (Losses)
    
    $
    (102,192
    )Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    126,392Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized expenses
related to indebtedness
    
    
    87An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    1,127Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    127,606Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    (A
    )Excluding Interest on DepositsEarnings (Losses):Pre-tax loss from continuing operations
    
    $
    (229,798
    )Plus:Fixed Charges (excluding capitalized interest)
    
    
    73,319Total Earnings (Losses)
    
    $
    (156,479
    )Fixed Charges:Interest expensed and capitalized
    
    $
    72,105Amortized premiums, discounts, and capitalized expenses
related to indebtedness
    
    
    87An estimate of the interest component within rental expense
    
    
    1,127Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    73,319Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    (A
    )
 
 (A)
    
    Due to the Companys pre-tax loss for the six month
period ended June 30,2010 the ratio coverage was less than 1:1.
The Company would have to generate additional earnings of $229.8 million to achieve a ratio of 1:1 during the first half of 2010.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


                    Greka Energy Corporation and Subsidiaries






<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three Months Ended
                                                            March 31,
                                                      2000             1999
                                                  -----------      -----------
<S>                                               <C>              <C>
Basic Earnings
   Net (Loss) Income to Common Shares             $(1,121,797)     $(1,132,542)
Basic Shares
            Weighted Average Outstanding            4,339,940        3,025,655
Basic (Loss) per Share                                   0.26            (0.38)
                                                  ===========      ===========
Diluted Shares
            Weighted Average Outstanding            4,494,546        3,025,655
Diluted (Loss) per Share                          $      0.26      $     (0.38)
                                                  ===========      ===========
</TABLE>
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60653

AMOCO PRODUCTION COMPANY,

Petitioner,

versus

ROBERT S. DAVIES; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS;

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review from the Benefits Review Board

(94-0745A)

September 8, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This matter is before the court on petition for review of a statutory lack of

action affirmance by theBenefitsReview Board ofthe award by the Administrative
2

Law Judge to Robert S. Davies under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’

Compensation Act. Considering the briefs and oral arguments of counsel and

pertinent parts of the record, and finding no reversible error, the petition for review

is DENIED.
! " #$%&'

#()*+**+)*	)$*$#	*

,


----------"----------

#

".
















$"
(/

#(/


01 .
/


!
 ".

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)

#2. ,


 ,

,
3 
 !"" ,
  
#$

%&'
 ,

..2".
.2"
4"
 
0
"


,,"

" 4"
5 
064

07

.


46,
#

"

$..""2 " #$

%88 9,"

" ,.9: ,
206"
.
"
,#;%3


,
"

""
,#$%&''&9,

<
,,
6
22040
9

IT IS ORDERED,,
."/

+()+ ;	(*+,


="2
 "06.2"
"


.2".
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  .,"is reduced to 

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

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

+<
2",
7"
2
9002"",
> .

 ",00
.



IT IS SO ORDERED



/

Judge’s signature

+


/

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

MICHAEL DEWAYNE STEWART 11-00270-004

12341-003

August 7, 2012

Pro Se

✔

✔

January 7, 2014

United States District Judge

Michael Dewayne Stewart is not eligible for a reduction. Application of the amendment would result in a new total

offense level of 33, with a criminal history category of I, and a revised guideline range of 135 to 168 months. Although

the defendant's guideline range would subsequently be lowered by application of the amendment, at the time of

sentencing, Stewart received a sentence (72 months) which fell outside of the advisory guideline range. Pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), and Application Note 3, the Court may only grant a comparable reduction outside of the

guideline range if the below-guideline sentence was due to the defendant providing substantial assistance to authorities.

As the defendant's reduction was granted pursuant to 3553(a), a comparable reduction is not permitted. Therefore, the

defendant would not benefit from a recalculation of the guidelines

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: 2015.01.07 10:19:36 -06'00'

Case 1:11-cr-00270-CG-N Document 189 Filed 01/07/15 Page 1 of 1
EX-10.11



 Exhibit 10.11 

[*.*] CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED: INFORMATION FOR WHICH CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED IS OMITTED AND IS NOTED WITH “[*.*].” AN
UNREDACTED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AMENDMENT TO BRANDED DISTRIBUTOR MARKETING 
 AGREEMENT—MULTI-BRAND 

This First Amendment to Amendment to Branded Distributor Marketing Agreement—Multi-Brand (“Agreement”),
dated effective as of October 1, 2012 (the “Effective Date”), is entered into by and between VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation (“VMSC”) and GPM INVESTMENTS, LLC
(“Distributor”). 
 RECITALS 

A. VMSC and Distributor entered into an Amendment to Branded Distributor Marketing Agreement - Multi-Brand, dated effective as of
January 1, 2012 (as amended hereby, the “Agreement”), which set forth certain amendments to the Branded Distributor Marketing Agreement (Multi-Brand), dated January 1, 2012 (the
“DMA”). 
 B. VMSC and Distributor now desire to amend the Agreement to add an additional amendment to the DMA on
the terms and conditions set forth herein, to be effective from and after the Effective Date. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the
terms, conditions, and covenants set forth in this Agreement, VMSC and Distributor agree as follows: 
 1. Recitals. The foregoing
recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein. 
 2. Amendment. From and after the Effective Date, a new
Section 23 is added to the Agreement as follows: 
  

23. [*.*]. VMSC agrees that, beginning on October 1, 2012, the provisions of this
section will apply and override any conflicting provisions in VMSC’s [*.*] from time to time. The following capitalized terms have the following meanings: [*.*] means, at a given point in time, the [*.*] under this Agreement, for each [*.*].
[*.*] means each of the following [*.*] listed [*.*] below: [*.*]. 
 For each [*.*], the [*.*]
beginning on October 1, 2012 will be those set forth in the definition of [*.*] above; provided however, that VMSC reserves the right to modify the [*.*] at any time upon 90 days’ written notice to Distributor, so long as the
[*.*]. 

 3. Miscellaneous. 

a. Except as amended hereby, the Agreement remains full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed by the parties.

 b. This Amendment shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their permitted successors and assigns.

 c. In the event of a conflict or discrepancy between the terms of this Amendment and the Agreement, this Amendment shall
control. 

  
 Page 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed, sealed, and delivered this Amendment
as of the Effective Date. 
  

									
	 DISTRIBUTOR:
  

GPM INVESTMENTS, LLC
				 VMSC:
  

VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY

					
	By:		 /s/ Chris Giacabone
				By:		 /s/ David M. Parker

	Name:		Chris Giacabone						David M. Parker, Senior Vice President
	Title:		COO						


  
 Page 2
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
                     Officer of Southern First Bancshares, Inc. (the "company"), each
                     certify that, to his knowledge on the date of this certification: 1. The annual report of the company for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date
                     (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 result of operations
                     of the company.  Date: March 9, 2009
                           
                           
                           By:R. Arthur Seaver, Jr.Chief Executive Officer  Date: March 9, 2009
                           
                           
                           By:James M. Austin, IIIChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 23.1

ERNST & YOUNG

Central Park
152 St. Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000
Australia

GPO Box M939
Perth WA 6843

November 14, 2001

The Company Secretary
Dynamic Digital Depth Inc.
1600 Canada Place
407 2nd Street SW
Calgary Alberta
T2P 2Y3 CANADA

Att: Ms. Sarah-Lane Sirey

Dear Madam:

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

We agree to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent Auditors"
and to the inclusiion in the Form 20-F of our reports dated May 15, 2001 and July
16, 2001 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Dynamic Digital
Depth Inc.

/s/ Ernst & Young
Ernst & Young

Perth, Australia
14 November 2001
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-40,136-15

IN RE PAUL STURGEON, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 1280723 IN THE 248th DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that in May of 2015, he filed an amended application

for a writ of habeas corpus in the 248th District Court of Harris County, that more than 35 days have

elapsed, and that the application has not yet been forwarded to this Court.

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris

County, is ordered to file a response, which may be made by submitting the record on such habeas

corpus application, submitting a copy of a timely filed order which designates issues to be

investigated (see McCree v. Hampton, 824 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)), or stating that
2

Relator has not filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in Harris County, other than the three

applications previously sent to this Court. Should the response include an order designating issues, 1

proof of the date the district attorney’s office was served with the habeas application shall also be

submitted with the response. This application for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in

abeyance until Respondent has submitted the appropriate response. Such response shall be

submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: June 1, 2016

Do not publish

 Relator’s -13 writ contained two applications: the first signed by Relator on January 7, 1

2015 and filed by the district clerk on January 12, 2015, and a second amended application

signed by Relator on May 12, 2015 and filed by the trial court on June 8, 2015. Relator’s -14 writ

contained one application, signed by Relator on March 18, 2105 and filed by the district clerk on

March 27, 2015. The amended 11.07 application that Relator contends has not been forwarded

to this Court was signed by Relator on May 16, 2015.