alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James Trimble *v.*Farmers’ Bank of Kentucky.

Attorney’s Fees — Promissory Notes.

A stipulation in a promissory note that if it should become necessary to collect it by legal proceedings the obligors would pay a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs of collection, is not enforcible.

APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

October 29, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Cofer:

The appellee sued the appellant and others, on a promissory note for $2,151.17, which contained a stipulation-that if it became necessary to collect it by legal proceedings, the obligors would pay a reasonable attorney’s fee and cost of collection. This stipulation is set out in the petition, and it is alleged that it had become necessary to collect the note by legal proceedings, and that a reasonable attorney’s fee therefor is $100.

The appellant having failed to answer, judgment was rendered by default on the 13th day of February, 1874, for the amount of the notes and one hundred dollars and cost. On the 16th day of February, the appellant tendered an answer and moved the court to set aside the judgment, and permit the answer to be filed, to which appellee objected, and his motion having been overruled, he excepted and made the proffered answer a part of the record by bill of exceptions, and now complains that the court erred in refusing to set aside the judgment and, allow his answer to be filed, and also, that the court erred in rendering judgment against him.

The answer tendered by appellant refers to and adopts an answer tendered at the same time by other defendants, and among other defenses set up in the answer thus referred to, is a denial that one hundred dollars is a reasonable attorney’s fee for the collection of the note, and also an averment that the stipulation to pay an at*187torney’s fee in case suit had to be brought on it, “is invalid, illegal and inoperative.”

*Turner & G orris on, for appellant.*

*Apperson & Reid, for appellee.*

We have heretofore decided that if a party sought to be charged with the payment of an attorney’s fee on a contract like this, and appears, and resists a judgment, no judgment can be rendered against him on account of such stipulation. The appellant did not object in this case before judgment was rendered, but he did, by adopting the answer of his codefendants, in which the legality of that part of the demand was directly called in question, indicate unmistakably that he did not consent to that part of the judgment; and as the court still had power to set aside or modify the judgment, his motion should have been sustained on that ground, if on no other.

None of the answers tendered appear to have been sworn to, and they were properly rejected for that reason, if for no other. But as the judgment must be reversed for the error already indicated, the appellant should be allowed to make any legal or equitable defense he may have.

Wherefore the judgment against the appellant is *reversed*and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
#### Rafael Ramirez GUILLEN; Magdalena Rocha Espinoza, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-73179.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

*972Rafael Ramirez Guillen, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Annette M. Wietecha, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying as untimely petitioners’ motion to reconsider.

The regulations provide that a motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days after the challenged BIA order. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider filed more than 14 months after the challenged BIA order. *See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir.2004) (BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition of this petition for review is granted. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

The motion for a stay of removal pending review is denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of voluntary departure, filed after the departure period had expired, is denied. *See Garcia v. Ashcroft,*368 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*973ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRA BETTS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0356-CG-N

)

CONECUH COUNTY BOARD OF 

EDUCATION, et al.,

)

)

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

The parties having filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Doc. 52), all claims 

in this action are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Each party shall bear his, her

or its own respective costs.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of May, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00356-CG-N Document 53 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>



                                                                    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 Composite Technology Corporation Quarterly Report on Form
10-QSB for the  quarter  ended June 30,  2004 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Benton H Wilcoxon,
Chief  Executive  Officer and acting  Chief  Financial  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, to the best of my knowledge:

(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.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906,  another
document authenticating,  acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Composite  Technology  Corporation
and will be retained by Composite  Technology  Corporation  and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



---------------------------------
Benton H Wilcoxon
Chief Executive Officer & Acting Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive & Financial Officer)
----

|   | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2010, (the "Quarterly Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| /s/ Paul O. Koether     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Paul O. Koether         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                    |   |
|                    |   |
| /s/ Bryan P. Healey     |   |
| Bryan P. Healey         |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

# AGENCY:

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

# ACTION:

Notice, correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         on December 8, 2014, (79 FR 72714) announcing the 2015 meeting dates of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee. The notice incorrectly listed the year of the meetings. This document corrects this error.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Madeline Gonzalez, by telephone at (202) 606-2858 or by email at                         *pay-leave-policy@opm.gov.*

*Correction:*                         The correct dates are as follows:                    

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Thursday October 15, 2015

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Thursday, December 17, 2015

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sheldon Friedman,

Chairman, Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee.

[FR Doc. 2014-29447 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325-49-P
**EXHIBIT 10.2**

 

ANDREW CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN AGREEMENT

 

THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of July, 2004, by and between AndrewCorporation (the “Company”) and Ralph Faison (the “Executive”),

 

WITNESSETH:

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Andrew Corporation ExecutiveSeverance Benefit Plan, as amended and restated effective May 14, 2004 (the“Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Executive has been designated as an eligible participantin the Plan;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Executive and Company hereby agree as follows:

 

1.                                       PlanBenefits.  The Executive has beendesignated as a TIER I Participant in the Plan and shall be eligible solely forthe benefits set forth therein applicable to TIER I Participants.  The receipt of such benefits shall besubject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Plan, including,but not limited to, terms related to the amount, time and form ofbenefits.  By execution of thisAgreement, the Executive agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Plan, asamended and restated effective May 14, 2004, and as may be subsequentlyamended.

 

2.                                       Arbitration.  The Executive acknowledges thatSection 7.2 of the Plan contains an arbitration provision, and byexecution of this Agreement agrees to be bound by the terms of such arbitrationprovision.

 

3.                                       PlanNot Contract of Employment.  ThePlan does not constitute a contract of employment and nothing in the Plan shallbe construed to give the Executive the right to be retained by the Company orto any benefits not specifically provided by the Plan.

 

4.                                       PlanSupercedes Prior Change in Control Severance Agreements.  The Executive acknowledges and agrees thatthe benefits and terms set forth in the May 14, 2004 restatement of the Plan,as applicable to the Participant based on the Tier designated in paragraph 1above, are a replacement for and in lieu of any benefits to which the Executivemay have been entitled under the Plan prior to its restatement or under anyother agreement with the Company relating to Change in Control severancebenefits.  The Executive furtheracknowledges such benefits and terms may be subsequently amended pursuant toSection 7.1 of the Plan.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to beexecuted as of the date first above written.

 
| EXECUTIVE            |   | ANDREW CORPORATION |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------|
|                 |   |               |
| /s/ Ralph E.  Faison |   |               |   |
| , individually       |   |               | By: | /s/ CR Nicholas |   |
|                 |   |               | Its: |   |   |
|                      |        |                    |  |  |  |  |  |

 

----
! " #$%&'

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

,


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

#

".
















$"
(/

#(/


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

CEDRIC D. KENNEDY 12-00032-CG & 12-00068-CG

12561-003

August 30, 2012

Pro Se

✔

✔

February 23, 2015

United States District Judge

Cedric Kennedy is not eligible for a reduction of sentence pursuant to the 2014 Amendment to the Drug Guidelines. At

the time of sentencing, the defendant was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months as to

counts 1 and 3 of case number 12-00032 and count 30 of case number 12-00068. Upon imposition of sentence,

Kennedy received a sentence of 51 months as to the drug violation counts: 1 in 12-00032 and 30 in 12-00068, which fell

below the statutory minimum of 60 months. As the sentence was not imposed pursuant to a 3553(e) motion, he is not

entitled to any additional reduction in sentence, as his actual guideline range remains 60 months as to those counts of

conviction.

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: 2015.02.23 08:54:47 -06'00'

Case 1:12-cr-00068-CG-B Document 473 Filed 02/23/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Timothy H. Williams, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[971 NYS2d 442]

— Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered August 18, 2010, which denied *745plaintiffs CPLR 4404 (a) motion to set aside the jury’s verdict in this case alleging intentional tort, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly determined that the jury’s verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see *Lolik v Big V Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]). The testimony of plaintiff and defendant’s witness offered conflicting accounts of the events at issue. The jury weighed the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence and reached its conclusion based on a fair interpretation of the evidence.

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.
Ex 10.287 - Endo_RRA_Counterpart_re_2025_Notes


Exhibit 10.287


Counterpart to Registration Rights Agreement
June 24, 2015
Each of the undersigned hereby absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably agrees as a Guarantor, as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement, dated January 27, 2015 by and among Endo Finance LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Endo Finco Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Endo Limited, an Irish private limited company, the Guarantors party thereto, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., relating to the 6.00% Senior Notes due 2025, to be bound by the terms and provisions of such Registration Rights Agreement.



Exhibit 10.287


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this counterpart as of the date first written above.


	
		
	HAWK ACQUISITION IRELAND LIMITED

	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary




	
		
	By:
	  /s/ Orla Dunlea

	Name:
	Orla Dunlea

	Title:
	Director






	
		
	MANJANO LIMITED (TO BE RENAMED ENDO

	TOPFIN LIMITED)

	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary




	
		
	By:
	  /s/ Orla Dunlea

	Name:
	Orla Dunlea

	Title:
	Director






	
		
	ENDO IRELAND FINANCE LIMITED

	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary




	
		
	By:
	  /s/ Orla Dunlea

	Name:
	Orla Dunlea

	Title:
	Director





[Signature to Registration Rights Agreement Counterpart - 6.00% Senior Notes due 2025]




Exhibit 10.287


	
		
	ENDO US HOLDINGS LUXEMBOURG I S.À R.L.



	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary








	
		
	By:
	    /s/ John D. Boyle

	Name:
	John D. Boyle

	Title:
	A Manager




	
		
	By:
	/s/ Joost Tulkens

	Name:
	Joost Tulkens

	Title:
	B Manager




	
		
	ENDO US HOLDINGS LUXEMBOURG II S.À R.L.



	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary






	
		
	By:
	    /s/ John D. Boyle

	Name:
	John D. Boyle

	Title:
	A Manager



	
		
	By:
	/s/ Joost Tulkens

	Name:
	Joost Tulkens

	Title:
	B Manager





[Signature to Registration Rights Agreement Counterpart - 6.00% Senior Notes due 2025]




Exhibit 10.287


	
		
	HAWK ACQUISITION ULC

	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary






	
		
	By:
	    /s/ Laurence S. Smith

	Name:
	Laurence S. Smith

	Title:
	Director




	
		
	ENDO BERMUDA FINANCE LIMITED

	  as Guaranteeing Subsidiary






	
		
	By:
	    /s/ Robert J. Cobuzzi, Ph.D.

	Name:
	Robert J. Cobuzzi, Ph.D.



	Title:
	Director







[Signature to Registration Rights Agreement Counterpart - 6.00% Senior Notes due 2025]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7504

MIKE E. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus K. FOWLKES, Grievance Coordinator for SX1; D. E. WILMOUTH, Unit Manager for SX1; LIEUTENANT HARGRAVES, for SX1; LIEUTENANT BROWN, for SX1; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MAYO, for SX1; SERGEANT EZZELL, for SX1; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HILL, for SX1; H. CLARK, Operation Office, SX1, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-00-377-2) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 28, 2000 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mike E. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mike E. Jackson, a Virginia state inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Jackson v. Fowlkes , No. CA-00-377-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2000). We deny Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit_10-1_2015.06.30






EXHIBIT 10.1


Business Confidential Proprietary Information
Confidential information has been omitted in places marked “*****” and has been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to this omitted information.
United States Enrichment Corporation
A Centrus Energy Corp. Subsidiary


Philip G. Sewell                                        
Senior Vice President & Chief Development Officer
(301) 564-3305 phone
(301) 564-3205 fax
June 18, 2015
Business Confidential Proprietary Information
Mr. Sergey I. Polgorodnik
First Deputy General Director
Joint Stock Company "TENEX"
Ozerkovskaya nab., 28 bld. 3
Moscow, 115184, Russia
		
	Ref:
	Enriched Product Transitional Supply Contract, TENEX Contract No. 08843672/110033-051, USEC Contract No. EC-SC01-11-UE-03127, as amended (the “Contract”)


		
	Subject:
	Modification to the Contract


Dear Mr. Polgorodnik:
We have determined that United States Enrichment Corporation ("USEC") will order at least 978,000 separative work units from Joint Stock Company "TENEX" ("TENEX") under the Contract for delivery in 2015.  In order for USEC to make this purchase, we need a small part of U.S. Consumption Quota Amount in addition to the increase of Initial USEC U.S. Consumption Quota Amount to which USEC is entitled pursuant to ***** the Contract (as modified by Amendment No. 004 dated September 10, 2014).
Accordingly, we propose that, by execution of this amending letter agreement to the Contract and pursuant to Paragraph I-4 of the Contract, TENEX and USEC agree to amend Appendix I to the Contract (as previously modified by Amendment No. 004 dated September 10, 2014) by *****.
This letter agreement, once countersigned by TENEX, shall constitute a supplement to the Contract under Section 20.04 of the Contract and to the extent that it is not consistent with an express terms of the Contract, this letter agreement shall control.  All capitalized terms used but not defined in this letter agreement shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Contract.
Please indicate your agreement to all of the above by signing on behalf of TENEX in the space provided below.  This letter agreement shall be effective as of the first date by that TENEX has signed in the space provided.  This letter agreement may be signed in counterparts and delivered by any of the means permitted by Section 16.01 of the Contract, including by electronic mail in Adobe portable document format 









(.pdf) to the electronic mail addresses in Section 16.01.  A counterpart document (including in .pdf format) signed by a Party shall constitute an original and all such signed counterparts assembled together shall constitute a fully executed agreement.
Sincerely,
/s/ Philip G. Sewell
Philip G. Sewell
Agreed on behalf of Joint Stock Company "TENEX"


/s/ Sergey I. Polgorodnik                        
(signature)


Sergey I. Polgorodnik                                
(name)


First Deputy General Director                
(title)


June 22, 2015                                        
(date)