alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 10.109
   
 
 Re:
    
    Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of September 12, 2007 (the
Purchase Agreement), by and among Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.
(Freeport), Phelps Dodge Corporation (PDC), Phelps Dodge
Industries, Inc. (PDI), Habirshaw Cable and Wire Corporation
(Habirshaw) and General Cable Corporation (GCC)




---



##### 



less minus plus Estimated Cocesa
Adjustment Amount Closing Payment
  Closing Statement




---



##### 



The Wall Street Journal
  Political Risk Insurance Policies
    Sellers COCESA Shares Per Share Amount Aggregate
COCESA Share Price




---



##### 



Withholding Indemnity
   Chile Offer Indemnity Chile Offer Failure Bidder




---



##### 



Legal Title Indemnity Tax Certificate
  PD Brazil Performance Bond Indemnity
 Intentionally omitted.
 Alcave Dividend




---



##### 



Estimated Cocesa Adjustment Amount
  Venezuelan BV
 Venezuelan Transfer




---



##### 



Error! Bookmark not defined.
     [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]




---



##### 



cc:
    
    Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Attention: Michael W. Blair, Esq.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6343

ANTHONY RAY FLEMING,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FEDERAL BUREAU OF

PRISONS; KATHLEEN HAWK SAWYER; J. R. JAMES,

Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Butner, Satellite Camp,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge.

(CA-99-827-5-F)

Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 24, 2000

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Ray Fleming, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Ray Fleming appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Fleming v. United States, No. CA-99-827-5-F (E.D.N.C.

Feb. 9, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jewett-Cameron Trading Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

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



(2)

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



|Date: January 11, 2007 | Signed:  /s/  Donald M. Boone     
|---------------------- | ----------------------------------
|                       | Donald M. Boone,
President and CEO
#### WASHINGTON PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff, v. The RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, Receiver for Baltimore Federal Financial, F.S.A., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 90-3002(CRR).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

March 20, 1992.

Lorin H. Bleecker, of Katz, Frome, Sian and Bleecker, P.A., Rockville, Md., with whom Susan J. Rubin and Gail B. Landau, of Katz, Frome, Sian and Bleecker, P.A., Rockville, Md., were on the brief, for plaintiff.

Thomas C. Beach, III, of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, Baltimore, Md., with whom Stephen F. Fruin, Gary S. Posner, and Michael D. Oliver, of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, Baltimore, Md., were on the brief, for defendant.

ORDER

CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.

The plaintiff in the above-captioned action, Washington Properties Limited Partnership, petitions this Court for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction to prevent the defendant Resolution Trust Corporation (“RTC”) from foreclosing on the deed of trust that is the subject of ongoing litigation in this case.

In the underlying action, the plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to relief under a number of theories. *See*Complaint. By Order of October 11, 1991, this Court ordered a separate trial on the plaintiff’s rescission claim in the interest of efficiency, judicial economy, and to further the convenience of the parties. The defendant now seeks to foreclose on the deed of trust, which is the subject of the trial scheduled for next month on the rescission claim.

While it understands the importance of the matter to the plaintiff, this Court is unable to grant to the plaintiff the injunctive relief it seeks. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) provides that “no court may take any action ... to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Corporation [RTC] as a conservator or receiver.” 12 U.S.C. § 1821(j). This provision deprives this Court “of the ability to enjoin nonjudicial foreclosures that are within the statutory powers of the RTC as conservator or receiver.” *281-300 Joint Venture v. Onion,*938 F.2d 35, 39 (5th Cir.1991), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 933, 117 L.Ed.2d 105 (1992). The instant motion involves a nonjudicial foreclosure that is within the RTC’s power to, *inter alia,*“collect all obligations and money due the institution”. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(2)(B)(ii). Therefore the Court is precluded by statute from enjoining the foreclosure. *Onion*at 39; *see also Costa v. Resolution Trust Corp.,*789 F.Supp. 43 (D.C.Mass.1991) (Keeton, J.).

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 20th day of March, 1992,

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and *542Preliminary Injunction shall be, and hereby is, DENIED.
#### Vacuum Oil Co. *v.*Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co.

*(Circuit Court, N. D. New York.*

March 20, 1885.)

1. Patents fob Inventions—Novelty—Patent No. 68,426.

Claims 2 and 12 of patent No. 68,426 granted to Hiram B. Everest, on September 3, 1867, for an improvement in apparatus for distilling petroleum, *held*void for want of novelty.

2. Same—Disclaimer.

After the term of a patent has expired, it is too late to file a disclaimer.

In Equity.

Wallace, J.

For the reasons stated orally at the hearing of this cause the second and twelfth claims of the patent in suit (No. 68,426, granted September 3, 1867, to Hiram B. Everest, assigned to complainant) are clearly void lor want of novelty. Inasmuch as no disclaimer has been filed, it is unnecessary to consider the validity of the other claims. After the term of a patent has expired it is too late to file a disclaimer. The suit cannot therefore be maintained, and the bill is dismissed.
<TABLE>
                                                                                             Nicor Gas Company
                                                                                             Form 10-K
                                                                                             Exhibit 12.01
   
   
                                               Nicor Gas Company
                      COMPUTATION OF CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                                  (thousands)
   
<CAPTION>
   
                                                                           Year ended December 31             
                                                          1998          1997         1996        1995       1994  
   
   Earnings available to cover fixed charges:
   
     <S>                                             <C>           <C>          <C>         <C>        <C>
     Net income                                      $  94,119     $ 106,922    $ 107,106   $  85,448  $  93,078
   
     Add: Income taxes                                  55,299        64,714       63,579      49,881     50,958

          Fixed charges                                 44,870        46,886       46,747      39,400     37,729
   
          Allowance for funds used
           during construction                            (269)          (11)          (5)       (911)      (151)
   
     Total                                           $ 194,019     $ 218,511    $ 217,427   $ 173,818  $ 181,614
   
   
   Fixed charges:
   
    Interest on debt                                 $  42,624     $  45,246    $  43,762   $  38,129  $  36,726
   
    Other interest charges and
      amortization of debt discount,
      premium and expense, net                           2,246         1,640        2,985       1,271      1,003
   
    Total                                            $  44,870     $  46,886    $  46,747   $  39,400  $  37,729
   
   
   Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                     4.32          4.66         4.65        4.41       4.81
   
                                                                                                               
</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: 

APPOINTMENT TO CRIMINAL 

PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE

 

:

:

:

:

:

No. 480

CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES

 ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2016, the Honorable Bruce R. 

Beemer, Dauphin County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Criminal Procedural 

Rules Committee for a term expiring January 1, 2018.
Exhibit 31(a)**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Phillip D. Wright, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Northwest Pipeline Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)), for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 28, 2006     By: /s/ Phillip D. Wright         Phillip D. Wright    Senior Vice President    (Principal Executive Officer)
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 09, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 09, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0514. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA v. NEW IMAGE TOWING AND RECOVERY, INC..
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2017CV02366
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3415 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3415

To require Federal agencies to issue appropriate identification for the 
 carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers 
            and qualified retired law enforcement officers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2016

  Mr. Perdue introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require Federal agencies to issue appropriate identification for the 
 carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers 
            and qualified retired law enforcement officers.

    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 ``Support Experienced Law Enforcement 
Countering Terrorism Act of 2016'' or the ``SELECT Act''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES TO ISSUE IDENTIFICATION.

    Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in section 926B, by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) An agency upon request by a qualified law enforcement officer 
who is employed by the agency, shall issue identification described in 
subsection (d) to the qualified law enforcement officer.''; and
            (2) in section 926C, by adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) An agency from which a qualified retired law enforcement 
officer separated shall, upon request by the qualified retired law 
enforcement officer, issue identification described in subsection (d) 
to the qualified retired law enforcement officer.''.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that State and local agencies should 
issue appropriate identification to qualified law enforcement officers 
and qualified retired law enforcement officers in order for such 
officers to carry concealed firearms in accordance with sections 926B 
and 926C of title 18, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
[927 NYS2d 563]

#### Allstate Social Work and Psychological Services, PLLC, as Assignee of Lee Howell and Others, Plaintiff, v GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant. Allstate Social Work and Psychological Services, PLLC, as Assignee of Latarsha Brown and Others, Plaintiff, v GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant. Allstate Social Work and Psychological Services, PLLC, as Assignee of Amedeo Rodriguez and Others, Plaintiff, v GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County,

July 7, 2011

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Law Office of Teresa M. Spina,*Woodbury *(Dominick Dale*of counsel), for defendant. *Gary Tsirélman, P.C.,*Brooklyn *(Wesley Mead*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*722OPINION OF THE COURT

Genine D. Edwards, J.

In the instant actions for no-fault benefits, bench trials were held on April 13, 2011 and April 14, 2011. After establishing how the bills were created and given to Israel & Israel for mailing, plaintiffs witness, Vladmir Grinsberg, could not set forth how the bills were mailed. Mr. Grinsberg instead offered that the denial of claims indicated defendant received the bills. Plaintiffs counsel contended that the defendant’s denial of claim forms were admissible as party admissions for the limited purpose of proving the bills were mailed and received. Defendant objected and argued that plaintiff has to lay a foundation for the admission of the denial of claim forms. Hence, a directed verdict should be rendered in defendant’s favor in all three actions.

This court requested post-trial memoranda regarding the admissibility of the defendant’s denial of claim forms as party admissions for the limited purpose of establishing that plaintiff mailed its bills to the defendant.

After due deliberation of the evidence adduced at trial, as opposed to documents annexed to a summary judgment motion, this court adheres to the Appellate Term’s ruling that denial of claim forms shall be admitted into evidence only upon the laying of a business record foundation. *(Bath Med. Supply, Inc. v Utica Mut. Ins. Co.,*23 Misc 3d 141 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51030[U] [App Term, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2009]; *Bajaj v General Assur.,*18 Misc 3d 25 [App Term, 2d Dept 2007].) Besides testifying that he received the denial of claim forms, Mr. Grinsberg failed to proffer any evidence to authenticate the denial of claim forms.

Accordingly, defendant’s motions for directed verdict in each of the three actions are granted because plaintiff failed to shoulder its prima facie burden.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HENR Y M ENDOZA ANGEL; ANA GEAN DE LA C R

UZ, Pe titione rs, v. ERIC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72318 Age n c y Nos. A098-914-731

A098-914-733 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 21, 2015 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, GOULD, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. He nry M e ndoz a Ange l a n d Ana Ge a n de la C ruz , native s a

nd c itiz e n s of Guate m a la , pe tition pro se for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing the i r a ppe a l from

an im m i gration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision



# FIL ED JAN 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de ny ing the ir a pplic ations for a sy lum . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e grant the pe tition for re vie w a nd re m and. In de ny ing pe titione rs’ a s y lum c la i m s, the a ge nc y

found the y

fa ile d to e sta blish pa st pe rse c ution or a fe ar of future pe rse c ution on a c c o unt of a prote c te d ground. W

he n the IJ a

nd B IA issue d the ir de c isions in this c a se , the y did not ha

ve the b e ne fit of this c ourt’ s de c isions in He n rique z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba

nc ), C ordoba v . Holde r , 726 F.3d 1106 (9th C ir. 2013), a nd Pirir-Boc v . Holde r , 750 F.3d 1077 (9th C ir. 2014), or theB IA’ s de c isions in Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227 (B IA 2014), a nd M atte r of W -G-R- , 26 I. & N. De c . 208 (B IA 2014). Thus, we re m and pe titione rs’ a sy lum c la i m s to de te rm i ne the im

pa c t, if a ny , of the se de c isions. Se eIN S v . Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (pe r c uriam ). In light of this re m and, we do not re a c h pe t itione rs’ re m a ining c ha l le nge s to thea g e nc y ’ s de nia l of a s y l um at this time . R e sponde nt’ s m otion to hold this c a s e in a be y anc e is de nie d. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D; RE M ANDE D .

1 2 - 7 2 3 1 8 2
| **Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Summary Of Estimated Fair Value Of Financial Instruments) (Details) - USD ($) $ in Thousands** | Apr. 30, 2016 | Jul. 31, 2015 | Apr. 30, 2015 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
| Carrying value                                                                                                                               | $ 615,829     | $ 806,676     | $ 379,796     |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Carrying amount of long-term debt, net of unamortized discount or premium, excluding amounts to be repaid within one year or the normal operating cycle, if longer (current maturities). Includes, but not limited to, notes payable, bonds payable, debentures, mortgage loans and commercial paper. Excludes capital lease obligations.
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.22) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_LongTermDebtNoncurrent**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**instant |