alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Platt *v.*Phœnix Assur. Co. of London.

*(Circuit Court, D. Vermont.*

March 14, 1889.)

Removal of Causes—Jurisdictional Amount.

A declaration containing a special count on an insurance policy for $2,250, alleging a total loss, and concluding to plaintiff’s damage $2,000, “for the recovery of which, with just costs, plaintiff brings suit, ” and common money counts in *assumpsit*for $2,000, concluding as in the first count, shows that the amount in dispute exceeds $2,000, and the action is removable under the act of March 3, 1887

At Law. On motion to remand.

Action by Frederick S. Platt, assignee, against the Phoenix Assurance Company of London.

*George E.*Lawrence, for plaintiff.

*F. G. Swinington,*for defendant.

Wheeler, J.

This suit was begun in the state court, and removed to this court. The plaintiff has moved to remand upon the ground that the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of $2,000, required by the act of 1887. The declaration contains a special count upon a policy of insurance of $2,250 on specific property, alleging a total loss, and concluding to the damage of the plaintiff $2,000, “for the recovery of which, with just costs, the plaintiff brings suit;” also the common money counts in *asswnpsit*for $2,000, concluding to the damage of the plaintiff $2,000, “for the recovery of which with just costs the plaintiff brings suit.” These allegations of damages and claims of recovery, together, amount to $4,000, which, so far .as appears, is the amount in dispute which may be recovered in the suit. *Barry v. Edmunds,*116 U. S. 550, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 501; *Hilton*v. *Dickinson,*108 U. S. 165, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 424. The motion must therefore be overruled.
#### Howard Rukeyser, Appellant, v Leacroft Richardson, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

Submitted February 2, 2009;

decided March 31, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

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

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBancTec, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for thequarter ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission (the “Report”), I, Craig D. Crisman, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

 

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

 

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

 

 

Craig D. Crisman

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

October 28, 2002

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0 342 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. JEREMY HOLMQUIST,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 15 , 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 1 2024

04/01/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0342
Fee Amount


     

    SUNBERTA
      SHARE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT

    


    THIS
      AGREEMENT is made and effective as of November 16, 2006 (the "Effective Date")
      between
      Kelly
      Sundberg (the "Seller") and Sunberta Resources Inc. (Nevada)
      ("NevadaCo").

    


    WHEREAS:

    


    A.
      Pursuant to this Agreement, the Seller has agreed to sell and NevadaCo has
      agreed to purchase all
      100 of
      the Seller's Class A shares (the "AlbertaCo Shares") in the capital of Sunberta
      Resources Inc.
      (Alberta) ("AlbertaCo").
      These are all of the issued and outstanding shares of AlbertaCo.

    


    B.
      NevadaCo shall issue and deliver to the Seller 100 shares of its common stock
      to
      the Seller as consideration for the AlbertaCo Shares. The deemed purchase price
      for the AlbertaCo Shares is US$100.

    


    C.
      In
      connection with these transactions, AlbertaCo shall become a wholly-owned
      subsidiary of NevadaCo on the Effective Date.

    


    NOW
      THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:

    


    1.  Purchase
      and Sale.
      On the
      Effective Date, NevadaCo shall purchase from the Seller and the Seller
      shall sell, assign and transfer to NevadaCo the AlbertaCo Shares. NevadaCo
      shall
      pay the
      Seller
      100 shares of its common stock to the Seller as full and final consideration
      for
      the AlbertaCo Shares. The deemed purchase price for the AlbertaCo shares is
      US$100.

    


    2.
      Representation
      and Warranty of the Seller.
      To
      induce NevadaCo to enter into and complete the transaction contemplated by
      this
      Agreement, the Seller hereby represents and warrants to and covenants
      with NevadaCo that he

    owns
      good
      and marketable title to the AlbertaCo Shares as the
      legal
      and beneficial owner thereof free and clear of any liens, charges and
      encumbrances.

    


    3.
      Representations
      and Warranties of NevadaCo.
      NevadaCo
      hereby represents and warrants to and covenants with the Seller that (a)
      NevadaCo is duly organized, validly exists and is in good standing under the
      laws of Nevada,

    (b)
      when
      issued to the Seller the common shares of NevadaCo
      shall not be subject to any liens, security interests, encumbrances or other
      claims, and
      (c)
      NevadaCo has the full power, authority, right and capacity to execute
      and

    deliver
      this Agreement,
      to complete the transactions contemplated hereby and to duly observe and perform
      all
      of its
      covenants and obligations herein set forth.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this Agreement as of the date
      first written above.

     

    


    /s/
      Kelly Sundberg

    Kelly
      Sundberg

    


    


    SUNBERTA
      RESOURCES INC. (Nevada)

    


    /s/
      Kelly Sundberg

    Authorised
      Signatory
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 7701

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JAMES ELMER GROSS, JR., a/k/a Man, a/k/a Grip , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J. Frederick Motz , Senior District Judge. ( 1:02

- cr - 00201

- JFM

- 3 )

Submitted : May 23, 2017 Decided: June 1, 2017

Before GREGORY , Chief Judge , and TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James Elmer Gross, Jr. , Appellant Pro Se. Robert Reeves Harding , Christine Manuelian , Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Elmer Gross, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. “We r eview a district court’s decision to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of d iscretion and its ruling as to the scope of its legal authority under § 3582(c)(2) de novo.” United States v. Muldrow , 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). After review ing the transcript from Gross’ resentencing hearing, we conclude that the district court attributed to Gross one kilogram of heroin and five kilograms of cocaine and applied six levels of enhancements. See United States v. Gross , 199 F. App’x 219, 241 (4t h Cir. 2006) (No. 03

- 4458). A pplying Amendment 782 and the other enhancements used at resentencing, Gross’ new Guidelines range is 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment on the relevant counts of conviction. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2D1.1( c )(5),
2E1 .1(c)(2), ch. 5, pt. A (sentencing table) (2014). Because the district court varied downward and sentenced Gross to 180 months’ imprisonment on the relevant counts, Gross is not eligible for a sentencing reduction. See USSG § 1B1.10(b)(1) , p.s. & cmt. n. 1(A). Accordingly, we deny Gross’ motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not a id the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<PAGE>


                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          ACKERLEY COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



     ACKERLEY COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the
"Corporation"), does hereby certify:

     1.   That the Board of Directors of the Corporation, at a regular meeting
of the Corporation's Board on September 19, 1996, adopted resolutions setting
forth a proposed amendment to Article Fourth of the Certificate of Incorporation
of the Corporation (the "Amendment"), declaring said Amendment to be advisable
and calling for its submission to those shareholders of the Corporation of
record on September 20, 1996 (the "Shareholders").  The Amendment approved by
resolution by the Board of Directors is as follows:

          FOURTH:  The total number of shares of all classes of stock which
     the Corporation is authorized to issue is SIXTY-ONE MILLION FOUR
     HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TEN (61,406,510), divided into two
     (2) classes as follows:  (i) Fifty Million (50,000,000) shares of
     Common Stock with a par value of One Cent ($.01) per share (the
     "Common Stock"); and (ii) Eleven Million Four Hundred Six Thousand
     Five Hundred Ten (11,406,510) shares of Class B Common Stock with a
     par value of One Cent ($.01) per share (the "Class B Common Stock").

     2.   That pursuant to such resolutions of the Board of Directors,
Shareholders holding a majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote have
voted in favor of the Amendment by written consent to action of shareholders in
lieu of a meeting pursuant to Section 228 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware.

     3.   That the Corporation will provide prompt written notice of the
adoption of the Amendment to those Shareholders who did not consent in writing
to the adoption of the Amendment in accordance with Section 228(d) of the
General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

     4.   That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 242 and 228 of the General Corporation Law of the State
of Delaware.

<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Ackerley Communications, Inc. has caused this
certificate to be signed by William N. Ackerley, President, and attested by
Denis M. Curley, Secretary, this 26th day of September, 1996.

                              ACKERLEY COMMUNICATIONS, INC.


                              By: /s/ William N. Ackerley
                                  -----------------------
                                  William N. Ackerley, President

Attest:


/s/ Denis M. Curley
-------------------
Denis M. Curley, Secretary
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

Certification of Chief
Financial Officer

In connection with the Annual Report
of Team Nation Holdings Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel J. Duffy, Chief Financial Officer 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 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 4, 2009

/s/ Daniel J. Duffy
Daniel J. Duffy
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

          - [Transmittal Nos. 09-17]

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601-3740.

The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittals 09-17 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

Dated: May 4, 2009.

Patricia L. Toppings,

OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

      ( print page 22522)          ( print page 22523)          ( print page 22524)          ( print page 22525)          ( print page 22526)          ( print page 22527)          ( print page 22528)    

[FR Doc. E9-10936 Filed 5-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
##### 



EXHIBIT 5.2 CONSENT OF DAVIES WARD PHILLIPS & VINEBERG LLP November 1, 2004 Barrick Gold Corporation/Barrick Gold Inc./Barrick Gold Finance Company
BCE Place, Canada Trust Tower
161 Bay Street, Suite 3700
Toronto, Ontario
M5J 2S1 Dear Sirs/Mesdames: Re:   Registration Statement on Form F-9 for Barrick Gold Corporation/Barrick
Gold Inc./Barrick Gold Finance Company We have acted as Canadian counsel to Barrick Gold Corporation, Barrick Gold
Inc. and Barrick Gold Finance Company (the Registrants) in connection with
the registration statement on Form F-9 (the Registration Statement) being
filed today by the Registrants with the Securities and Exchange Commission
under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended. We acknowledge that we are referred to under the headings Description of Debt
Securities and The Guarantees  Enforceability of Judgments in the prospectus
forming a part of the Registration Statement and we hereby consent to such use
of our name in the Registration Statement. Yours very truly, /S/ DAVIES WARD PHILLIPS & VINEBERG LLP
#### Robert A. BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Tommy NORWOOD; Lawton Frederick Tyson; Christina Melton Crain; Becky Price; Warden Bruce Zeller, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-10815

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 13, 2009.

*307Robert A. Bell, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Iowa Park, TX, pro se.

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert A. Bell, Texas prisoner # 755528, filed the instant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit to seek redress for various wrongs. Bell contended that his rights were violated because he received no mail on Saturdays and because he was transported in vehicles that lacked seatbelts. He also alleged that another inmate violated his rights. The district court dismissed his suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and denied his request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal.

Bell argues that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his claim concerning unsafe transportation. Bell does not present argument concerning the district court’s determinations that his remaining claims were also meritless. Bell’s failure to brief these issues results in an abandonment of these issues. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

Bell’s “appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Bell’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is therefore GRANTED. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997). We dispense, however, with further briefing in this appeal, and, for the reasons given below, affirm the district court’s judgment.

Bell relies on *Helling v. McKinney,*509 U.S. 25, 28, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993), in support of his argument that the defendants breached his constitutional rights by transporting him in a vehicle that lacked seatbelts. Bell also contends that officials infringed his rights by failing to comply with Tex. Gov’t Code § 500.006(a). Bell has not shown that the defendants infringed his constitutional rights by transporting him in vehi-*308cíes that were not equipped with seatbelts. Consequently, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his suit. *See Siglar v. Hightower,*112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir.1997); *see also Resident Council v. United States Dep’t of Hous. and Urban Dev.,*980 F.2d 1043, 1050 (5th Cir.1993). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
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.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Mine Safety and Health Administration 

          - 30 CFR Parts 6, 14, 18, 48, and 75 
          - RIN 1219-AB59 

# AGENCY:

Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Labor. 

# ACTION:

Final rule, corrections. 

      ( print page 3431)    

# SUMMARY:

                        This document contains corrections to compliance dates for the final rule published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on December 31, 2008 for Flame-Resistant Conveyor Belt, Fire Prevention and Detection, and Use of Air from the Belt Entry (73 FR 80580). In addition, minor typographical errors in the                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         section, Compliance dates, are also corrected.                     

# DATES:

This correction is effective January 21, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Patricia W. Silvey at                         *silvey.patricia@dol.gov*                         (E-mail), (202) 693-9440 (Voice), or (202) 693-9441 (Fax).                     

This notice corrects errors contained in the Compliance Date section of FR Doc. E8-30639, published on Wednesday, December 31, 2008, beginning on page 80580. The following Corrections should be made: 

1. On page 80580, in the first column, the language for item number 3 is corrected to read: 

“3. §§ 75.380(d)(7), 75.380(f), 75.381(c)(5), and 75.381(e) by June 30, 2009.” 

2. Additionally, MSHA inadvertently omitted compliance dates for four sections of the final rule. Therefore, on the same page, in the same column, new item 6 should be added to read as follows: 

“6. Each mine operator required to use an atmospheric monitoring system under § 75.350(b) shall comply with the following sections within 60 days after approval of the mine ventilation plan by the district manager. 

1. § 75.350(d)(1), 

2. § 75.351(e)(1)(iii), 

3. § 75.351(e)(1)(iv), and 

4. § 75.352(g).” 

Richard E. Stickler, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health.

 [FR Doc. E9-1087 Filed 1-16-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-43-P