alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Morgan *et al. v.*Williams.

As the plaintiff’s right to recover necessarily' depended upon the validity of the alleged homestead; and as the evidence, taken all together, showed conclusively that the homestead had never been finally allowed and set apart, but that the plaintiff’s application for the same, while pending in the superior court on appeal from the court of ordinary, had been dismissed, the verdict was not supported by the evidence, was contrary to law, and ought to have been set aside.

April 8,1895,

By two Justices, Brought forward from the last term.

Complaint for land. Before Judge Henry. Floyd superior court. March term, 1894.

W. H. Dabney and Fouche & Fouche, for plaintiffs in error. Dean & Dean, *contra.*

Lumpkin, Justice.

This was an action for the recovery of land, bi’ought by Mrs. Orlena Williams against Samuel Moi’gan and D. E. Morgan. The plaintiff’s right to z’ecover depended entii’ely upon whether or not a homestead had been duly and lawfully set apart for the benefit of herself and her *743daughters out of land belonging to her husband. The facts are somewhat complicated, and numerous questions were raised at the trial; but in the view we take of the case, a detailed statement and discussion of the same is unnecessary. It appears that Mrs. Williams applied for a homestead out of her husband’s land, and that the same was allowed and set apart by the ordinary over the objections of various creditors, who entered an appeal to the superior court. In that court an order was passed, with the consent of all parties at interest, reciting that the “ appealed case from ordinary ” was thereby dismissed. The parol evidence introduced without objection on the trial of the present case, taken all together and fairly construed,, showed conclusively that the real meaning of this order Was, Pot that the appeal alone was dismissed, the effect of which would have been to affirm the judgment of the ordinary allowing the homestead, but that the entire case was dismissed, and consequently that the homestead application itself went out of court and was never finally allowed.

It was conceded that if the homestead was not valid, there could be no lawful verdict for the plaintiff. . It will be seen from the above condensed recital of the facts, that the plaintiff never in fact obtained a valid homestead, the action of the ordinary in primarily allowing it having been practically set aside and annulled by the final order entered in the superior court. It follows that the verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff were contrary to law, and ought to have been set aside.

*Judgment reversed.*
Exhibit
32.1





EXTERRAN
PARTNERS, L.P.


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 Exterran Partners, L.P.
(the “Partnership”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Stephen A.
Snider, as Chief Executive Officer of Exterran GP LLC, the general partner of
the Partnership’s general partner, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
his knowledge:





(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
      Partnership.





/s/ Stephen A.
Snider


Stephen
A. Snider


Chief
Executive Officer, Exterran GP LLC


As General Partner of Exterran General Partner, L.P.


As General Partner of Exterran Partners,
L.P.





May 7,
2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other 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 the Partnership and will be retained by the
Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
Reason for working less than 35 hours

Total

Usually

 work

full time

Usually

 work

part time

Total

Usually

 work

full time

Usually

 work

part time

 Total, 16 years and over ................................................................... 32,268 9,983 22,285 31,717 9,818 21,900

Economic reasons ................................................................................ 4,350 1,556 2,794 4,271 1,504 2,766

 Slack work or business conditions ...................................................... 2,684 1,294 1,390 2,636 1,260 1,376

 Could only find part-time work ............................................................ 1,341 – 1,341 1,330 – 1,330

 Seasonal work .................................................................................... 188 125 63 169 109 60

 Job started or ended during week ...................................................... 137 137 – 136 136 –

Noneconomic reasons .......................................................................... 27,918 8,427 19,491 27,447 8,313 19,134

 Child-care problems ........................................................................... 791 72 719 787 72 715

 Other family or personal obligations ................................................... 5,558 745 4,813 5,469 734 4,735

 Health or medical limitations ............................................................... 806 – 806 784 – 784

 In school or training ............................................................................ 6,237 98 6,138 6,180 97 6,083

 Retired or Social Security limit on earnings ........................................ 2,095 – 2,095 1,980 – 1,980

 Vacation or personal day .................................................................... 3,431 3,431 – 3,395 3,395 –

 Holiday, legal or religious ................................................................... 901 901 – 895 895 –

 Weather-related curtailment ............................................................... 513 513 – 485 485 –

 All other reasons ................................................................................. 7,588 2,668 4,920 7,472 2,635 4,837

Average hours:

Economic reasons .............................................................................. 23.0 23.8 22.5 23.0 23.8 22.5

 Other reasons ..................................................................................... 21.5 25.2 19.8 21.5 25.3 19.9

 NOTE: Beginning in January 2005, data reflect revised population controls used in the household survey. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet

publication criteria.

239
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wendy Carr, PhD, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop D60, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: (404) 498-2276.

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

      ( print page 33451)    
Dated: July 7, 2009.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. E9-16461 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
Exhibit 10.11
 Outside Director Compensation Plan
  Cash Retainers
 Amount per yearBoard member
    $
    50,000Audit Committee chair
    $
    20,000Audit Committee non-chair member
    $
    5,000Compensation Committee chair
    $
    20,000Compensation Committee non-chair member
    $
    5,000Nominating & Corp Gov Committee chair
    $
    20,000Nominating & Corp Gov Committee non-chair member
    $
    5,000Non-Executive Chairman of the Board
    $
    20,000
 
    
    Paid quarterly in arrears at the beginning of each fiscal quarter for the prior quarter.
    
    New board members shall receive the pro-rated amount in the quarter in which they are first
elected or appointed.
 Meeting Fees
  
    
    $4,000 per meeting day for in-person meetings of the Board of Directors
    
    $2,000 per telephonic meeting of the Board of Directors
 Equity Grants
 Initial Grant
  Amount
    
    12,000 stock options (as adjusted for stock splits or similar events)Term
    
    8 years (unless required under the relevant plan to be shorter)Vesting period
    
    3 years (one-third on each anniversary of grant)Vesting start date
    
    Date of election or appointmentPost-directorship exercise period
    
    1 yearChange in Control
    
    As provided in planExercise Price
    
    Most recent closing price of the stock as of the date of grant
 Annual Grant
  Amount
    
    6,000 stock options (as adjusted for stock splits or similar events)Term
    
    8 years (unless required under the relevant plan to be shorter)Vesting period
    
    100% vesting on May 1st of the following yearVesting start date
    
    Date of grantPost-directorship exercise period
    
    1 yearChange in Control
    
    As provided in planExercise Price
    
    Most recent closing price of the stock as of the date of grant
Case 2:11-cv-00902-FSH -PS   Document 17    Filed 03/18/11   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 197

Case 2:11-cv-00902-FSH -PS   Document 17    Filed 03/18/11   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 198
Exhibit 10.19 - Summary of Registrant's Compensatory Arrangements with Executive Officers






Exhibit 10.19
Summary of the Registrant's Compensatory Arrangements with Executive Officers


Name and Title     Base Salary for 2012


F. Thomson Leighton                                 $1*
Chief Executive Officer


James Benson    $400,000**
Chief Financial Officer


Melanie Haratunian    $400,000*
Executive Vice President and General Counsel


Robert Hughes    $500,000*
President - Worldwide Operations


Rick McConnell    $500,000*
President - Products and Development


*Effective January 1, 2013
**Effective April 1, 2013
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5043 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5043

    To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an 
     increase in the Federal minimum wage, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2004

  Mr. Bell (for himself and Mr. Neal of Massachusetts) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an 
     increase in the Federal minimum wage, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Minimum Wage Indexation Act of 
2004''.

SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INDEXATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not 
        less than the following--
                    ``(A) beginning on the date that is the 60th day 
                after the date of enactment of the Minimum Wage 
                Indexation Act of 2004, $5.85 an hour;
                    ``(B) beginning on the date that is 365 days after 
                that 60th day, $6.45 an hour;
                    ``(C) beginning on the date that is 365 days after 
                the date set forth in subparagraph (B), $7.00 an hour; 
                and
                    ``(D) beginning on the first day of each successive 
                365-day period commencing after the date set forth in 
                subparagraph (C), $7.00 an hour plus an increase 
                determined by the Secretary to be in proportion to the 
                increase in the Consumer Price Index for all urban 
                consumers for the period between the date referred to 
                in subparagraph (C) and the first day of each such 365-
                day period;''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
SHW-12.31.2012-EX10b




EXHIBIT 10(b)


SUMMARY OF BASE SALARY AND ANNUAL INCENTIVE
COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
2013 Base Salary.  On February 12, 2013, the Compensation and Management Development Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) of the Board of Directors of The Sherwin-Williams Company (“Sherwin-Williams”) set the 2013 base salaries of the executive officers who are expected to be named in the Summary Compensation Table of Sherwin-Williams' 2013 Proxy Statement (the “Named Executive Officers”).  The base salaries of the Named Executive Officers for 2013 are as follows:  C.M. Connor, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ($1,221,987); J.G. Morikis, President and Chief Operating Officer ($826,696); S.P. Hennessy, Senior Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer ($623,506); S.J. Oberfeld, Senior Vice President - Corporate Planning and Development ($569,036); and R.J. Davisson, President, Paint Stores Group ($505,362).
Annual Incentive Compensation to Be Earned in 2013.  The Compensation Committee also approved the following minimum, target and maximum cash bonus award levels, as a percent of salary, for the Named Executive Officers for 2013 under The Sherwin-Williams Company 2007 Executive Performance Bonus Plan.
    	
									
	 
	 
	Incentive Award as a Percentage of Base Salary

	Named Executive Officer
	 
	Minimum
	 
	Target
	 
	Maximum

	C.M. Connor
	 
	0
	 
	125
	

	 
	250
	


	J.G. Morikis
	 
	0
	 
	75
	

	 
	150
	


	S.P. Hennessy
	 
	0
	 
	75
	

	 
	150
	


	R.J. Davisson
	 
	0
	 
	60
	

	 
	120
	


	S.J. Oberfeld
	 
	0
	 
	60
	

	 
	120
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 338 Filed 06/03/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 14733
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 338 Filed 06/03/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 14734
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 338 Filed 06/03/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 14735
Case 3:11-cv-00760-JAP-TJB Document 338 Filed 06/03/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 14736
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: February 25, 2016 D-9-16 

___________________________________

In the Matter of ATTORNEYS IN

VIOLATION OF JUDICIARY LAW

§ 468-a.

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STANDARDS, ON MOTION

Petitioner;

DAVID MARTIN GREY,

Respondent.

(Attorney Registration No. 2140978)

___________________________________

Calendar Date: January 11, 2016

Before: Garry, J.P., Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ.

__________

Monica A. Duffy, Committee on Professional Standards,

Albany, for petitioner.

David Martin Grey, Los Angeles, California, respondent 

pro se.

__________

Per Curiam.

Respondent, who was admitted to practice by this Court in

1987, was suspended by this Court's order dated September 24,

2009 for failure to comply with the attorney registration

requirements of Judiciary Law § 468-a (65 AD3d 1447 [2009]).

Respondent now requests reinstatement on the ground that he

has complied with the attorney registration requirements of

Judiciary Law § 468-a and the Rules of the Chief Administrator of
-2- D-9-16 

the Courts (see 22 NYCRR part 118). Petitioner does not object

to respondent's application.

Respondent's application is granted and he is ordered

reinstated, effective immediately.

Garry, J.P., Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that respondent's application is granted; and it is

further

ORDERED that respondent is reinstated as an attorney and

counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-09-00180-CR

______________________________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

JUSTIN AUGUSTUS TATUM, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 6th Judicial District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22756

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The State of Texas, appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss its appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a); State v. Miles, 994 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.). As

authorized by Rule 42.2, we grant the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: October 27, 2009

Date Decided: October 28, 2009

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 32.1
                        COLLECTIBLE CONCEPTS GROUP, INC.
      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Collectible  Concepts  Group,  Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended February 28, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  Report),  I, Paul
Lipschutz,  Chief  Executive  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:

      (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.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Collectible Concepts Group, Inc. and will be retained by Collectible
Concepts Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.

Date:  August 2, 2005


 /s/ Paul Lipschutz
-----------------------
Paul Lipschutz
Chief Executive Officer
#### Graham *v.*Marks & Company.

Where an action was brought against two persons upon a promissory note executed by them as joint makers, and one only of them was served, a motion by the latter to dismiss the action for want of service upon the other ought to have been sustained, it not appearing, and the plaintiff not offering to show in resistance to the motion, that the defendant not served was dead or beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and there being no return of *non est inventus*as to him.

November 12, 1894.

*Certiorari.*Before Judge Lumpkin. Fulton superior court. September term, 1893.

George A. Carter, for plaintiff in error.

M. Foote, Jr., *contra.*

*39Simmons, Chief Justice.

It appears from the record that Mrs. Eliza J. Graham, the plaintiff in error, and one C. M. Davis, executed a joint promissoiy note, payable to M. Eoote, Jr., attorney for Brown Brothers. The note was indorsed by Eoote and by one L. E. Davis, and was negotiated to Marks & Company, and they brought suit upon it in a justice’s court against the joint makers, and against Eoote, attorney for Brown Brothers. At the appearance term, the defendant Mrs. Graham filed several pleas which it is unnecessary now to notice, and at the trial term she moved to dismiss the case on the ground that she was a joint maker with C. M. Davis and that he had not been .served. This motion was overruled; and after dismissing the pleas filed by Mrs. Graham, the court rendered judgment against her, and against M. Eoote, attorney for Brown Brothers, for the amount of the note. Mrs. Graham sued out a writ of *certiorari*to the superior court, and on the hearing in that court the *certiorari was*dismissed and the judgment of the magistrate affirmed, and to this ruling she excepted.

Where two persons execute a joint contract and are sued thereon, and one of them is not served, and it does not appear that the defendant not served is dead or beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and there is no return of *non est inventus*as to him, the court, upon a motion made at the proper time, should dismiss the action. Code, §§3350, 3414; *Booher v. Worrill,*43 *Ga.*587. There being no service as to one of the joint makers sued in this case, and the plaintiff not having shown or attempted to show that the one not served was dead or beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and there, being no return of *non est inventus*as to him, the court below erréd in dismissing the *certiorari.*

As to the indorsers, it was optional with the plaintiffs to sue either or both of them in this action, or to leave *40them both out of the action, if they saw proper to do so. The indorsers being simply indorsers and not joint makers, it was not necessary to join them in the action.

*Judgment reversed.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CAMDEN VICINAGE

JOHN SMITH,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RUBEN MORALES, et al., 

 Defendants.

 

JOHN SMITH,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Defendant.

 

JOHN SMITH,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN C. O'DONNELL, et al.,

 Defendants.

Civil No. 10-6022 (JBS/AMD)

Civil No. 11-600 (JBS/AMD)

Civil No. 11-2870 (JBS/AMD)

 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

AND ORDER ON INFORMAL APPLICATION

This Matter having come before the Court by way of letter

request dated October 27, 2011 from Christina N. Burgos, Esquire,

counsel for plaintiff, for an Order extending the time within which

to file a motion to amend pleadings and/or to join new parties; and

it appearing that defense counsel have no objection to this

extension request; and for good cause shown:

IT IS this 28th day of October 2011, hereby ORDERED:

1. The time within which to file a motion to amend the 

pleadings or a motion to join new parties will expire on December

15, 2011.

Case 1:11-cv-02870-JBS-AMD Document 23 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1111
2. Any application for an extension of time beyond the

deadlines set herein shall be made in writing to the undersigned

and served upon all counsel prior to expiration of the period

sought to be extended, and shall disclose in the application all

such extensions previously obtained, the precise reasons

necessitating the application showing good cause under FED. R. CIV.

P. 16(b), and whether adversary counsel agree with the application. 

The schedule set herein will not be extended unless good cause is

shown.

THE FAILURE OF A PARTY OR ATTORNEY TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY

RESULT IN THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 16(f).

s/ Ann Marie Donio 

ANN MARIE DONIO

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Hon. Jerome B. Simandle

2

Case 1:11-cv-02870-JBS-AMD Document 23 Filed 10/28/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1112