alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lizzie Merkel, Appellant, *v.*Alexander Lazard and Others, Respondents.

*Principal and agent*— *yohen apparent-.authority of agent a question for jury*— *decision rendered on prior appeal construed.*

Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court entered in the clerk’s office of the county of New York on the 22d day of May, 1907, dismissing the complaint. ■

Per Curiam:

On a prior appeal by the defendants from a judgment entered upon a direction of verdict in favor of plaintiff this court held the facts proved raised a .question for the jury and reversed the judgment and directed a new trial (114 App. Div. 25). On such new trial the learned trial court granted a nonsuit and the plaintiff appeals.. No new facts were developed on the second trial justifying such a disposition of the case. The witnesses Mueeke.and Frankenhauser were examined in greater detail on the last trial hut nothing new as to their course of dealing or as to the manner in which their checks were, drawn was developed, Qur former decision remains the law of the case and should be *935followed by the trial court. That decision determined that the proofs made a . question of fact clearly pointed for a jury to pass upon. The nonsuit was improper and the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Present—Patterson, P. J., Ingraham, Lauglilin, Clarke and Houghton, JJ. Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.
#### Bernard Sommer, by Kate Sommer, His Guardian ad Litem, Suing as a Poor Person, Respondent, v. Brooklyn Cedar Ware Works, Appellant.

—Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Hirschberg, P. J., Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ. ■
H. Res. 510

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 24, 2000.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.

4444) to authorize extension of nondiscriminatory treatment

(normal trade relations treatment) to the People’s Republic

of China. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.

In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on

Ways and Means now printed in the bill, the amendment in

the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as

ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate on the bill,

as amended, equally divided among and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Ways and Means, Representative Stark of California or his

designee, and Representative Rohrabacher of California or his
2

•HRES 510 EH

designee; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Charlotte Morton *vs.*William Cammack and James Ward, Administrators of John B. Ward.

Law. No. 14,353.

Decided February *24, 1879.*

1. Where the holder and indorser of a promissory note resides in the city, proof that notice of protest was deposited in the post office addressed to the indorser at his place of business is not sufficient to fix the liability of the indorser.

2. In cities where the letter carrier system prevails, it may be sufficient to serve such notice through the post office, but in such case the residence or place of business of the indorser must be proven to be within the limits of the carrier system, and that he is accustomed to receive his letters through that means.

STATEMENT OE THE CASE.

Action of assumpsit upon a promissory note against the maker and the administrator of the indorser. Fleas, never indebted, and that defendants did not promise.

On the trial, the plaintiff* gave the note in evidence, and he offered proof that the note was protested for non-payment, and that notice of protest was deposited in the post office in the city of Washington, directed to the indorser at his place of business in said city in his lifetime. It also appeared that the plaintiff was a resident of the city of Washington, residing within three squares of the said place of business. The plaintiff then rested, and defendants’ counsel requested the court to instruct the jury to render a verdict for him, because the notice of non-payment was deposited in the post office as certified by the notary in his certificate of protest, and not given to the indorser, Ward, personally, or left at his residence or place of business, which was in the city of Washington. This instruction was given as requested, and constitutes the subject of the exception now before the court. A verdict was returned in favor of the defendants.

William A. Cook for plaintiff*.

Wm. F. Mattingly for defendants.

*23By the Court :

The sole question in this ease is, whether, whqn both the holder and indorser of a promissory note reside in this city, it is . sufficient to hold the indorser by merely offering in proof certificate of a notary public, showing on its face demand on the maker, refusal to pay, and that notice of protest was deposited in the post office addressed to the indorser at his place of business. That this is not sufficient to hold the indorser was expressly decided in Bowling *vs.*Harrison, 6 How., 648; Ireland *vs.*Kipp, 11 John., 231. Authorities which suggest that in large cities, where the letter carrier system prevails, it might be sufficient to send notice through the post office, yet also show that in such cases the residence or place of business of the indorser must be proven to be within the limits of the carrier system, and that he is accustomed to receive his letter’s through that means. Nothing of the kind was attempted to be shown in this case.

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 8.1



List of Subsidiaries of JX Luxventure Limited



|Name of Subsidiary                                           |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization | 
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------- | 
|Flower Crown Holding                                         |  | Cayman Islands                                | 
|Flower Crown (China) Holding Group Co., Limited              |  | Hong Kong                                     | 
|Jin Xuan (Hainan) Holding Co, Ltd.                           |  | PRC                                           | 
|Jinxuan Luxury Tourism (Hainan) Digital Technology Co., Ltd. |  | PRC                                           | 
|Beijing Heyang International Travel Service Co., Ltd.        |  | PRC                                           |
Fourth Amendment to the AnnTaylor Stores Corporation 2000 Stock Option



 Exhibit 10.8 
 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO 
 THE ANNTAYLOR STORES CORPORATION 
 2000 STOCK OPTION AND RESTRICTED STOCK PLAN 
 The AnnTaylor Stores Corporation 2000
Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended effective as of March 13, 2008 (the “Effective Date”) as set forth below. 
 1. Section 7 of the Plan is hereby amended to add Subsection (h) at the end thereof as follows, effective with respect to all Options (as defined in the Plan) granted pursuant to the Plan, including
outstanding Options granted before the Effective Date: 
 “(h) CERTAIN PROVISIONS
APPLICABLE TO RESTRICTED UNIT AWARDS. Unless otherwise provided in the Restricted Unit Award Agreement, Restricted Unit Awards shall be settled as soon as practicable following the vesting thereof (but in no event later than the last day of the
‘applicable 2 1/2 month period’, as such term is defined in Treasury Regulation § 1.409A-1(b)(4)(i)(A)).”

 Except as set forth above, the Plan is hereby ratified and affirmed in all respects.
### §§1021 to 1023. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.26(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624

Section 1021, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title II, §201(a), as added Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title I, §2, 42 Stat. 1454; amended Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933, authorized the Farm Credit Administration to grant charters for 12 intermediate credit banks. See section 2071 of this title.

Section 1022, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title II, §201 (b), as added Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title I, §2, 42 Stat. 1454; amended June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title VII, §76(a), 48 Stat. 271; Aug. 19, 1937, ch. 704, §10, 50 Stat. 707; July 26, 1956, ch. 741, title I, §104(a), 70 Stat. 663, covered the location, directors, officers, employees, and by-laws of intermediate credit banks. See section 2072 of this title.

Section 1023, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title II, §201(c), as added Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title I, §2, 42 Stat. 1454; amended Aug. 19, 1937, ch. 704, §26, 50 Stat. 715, set out the corporate powers of intermediate credit banks. See section 2072 of this title.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**SOCIALWISE, INC.**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Socialwise, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Collas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPerformance Evaluation of Cognitive Interference Channels Using a Spectrum Overlay StrategyThe use of cognitive radios (CR) and cooperative communications techniques may assist in interference mitigation via sensing of the environment and dynamically altering communications parameters through the use of various mechanisms - one of which is the overlay technique. This report provides a performance analysis of an interference channel with a cognitive transceiver operating in an overlay configuration to evaluate the gains from using cognition. As shown in this report, a cognitive transceiver can simultaneously share spectrum while enhancing performance of non-cognitive nodes via knowledge of the communications channel as well as knowledge of neighboring users' modulation and coding schemes.Document ID20180001240Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKnoblock, Eric J.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredFebruary 15, 2018Publication DateFebruary 1, 2018Subject CategoryCommunications And RadarReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN52131NASA/TM-2018-219754E-19467Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 553323.04.10.09.01.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20180001240.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-21005 c/w 05-21083 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KHANH DUY HA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CR-169-2

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Khanh Duy Ha appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ecstasy. Ha argues that the district court clearly erred in enhancing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) and that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary when the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to move for a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 departure. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D December 11, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 05-21005 c/w 05-21083 -2- We first address Ha’s breach argument, which we review de

novo. See United States v. Saling , 205 F.3d 764, 766 (5th Cir. 2000). In Ha’s plea agreement, the Government retained sole discretion to move for a § 5K1.1 departure, and Ha does not argue that the Government’s refusal to do so was based on an unconstitutional motive. See United States v. Garcia-Bonilla , 11 F.3d 45, 46 (5th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the Government’s conduct was not inconsistent with the parties’ reasonable understanding of the agreement. See United States v. Wilder , 15 F.3d 1292, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994). In light of the foregoing, Ha has not borne his burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Government breached the plea agreement.
See United States v. Price , 95 F.3d 364, 367 (5th Cir. 1996). Ha’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, which the Government seeks to enforce and which the record establishes was entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v. Robinson , 187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir. 1999). Therefore, Ha’s challenge to the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement is barred by his appeal waiver and is dismissed. See United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992).
DISMISSED.
particular circumstances of this case and in light of the district court's

intent to revisit the custody arrangement in the near future, we decline to disturb the court's decision.

Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

, J. Hardesty


## a- 19 0% Parraguit

j r 

# C 6 .4 t Cherry cc: Hon. William B. Gonzalez, District Judge, Family Court Division Law Office of Shell Mercer Kevin J. Adkins Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A I IT

- n 2
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian E. Schaaf, certify that:

 

1.                                    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2012-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                                    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, as indenture trustee of the issuing entity, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity.

 

Dated March 18, 2015

 

 
|   | /s/   Brian E. Schaaf                              |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Brian   E. Schaaf                                  |
|   | Vice   President and Assistant Treasurer           |
|   | Ford   Motor Credit Company LLC, as Servicer       |
|   | (senior   officer in charge of servicing function) |

 

----
### [§2448b. Renumbered §4272]
§ 273.155 How will the existing contracting party know when reports are due? The BIE Director will provide existing contracting parties with timely information relating to: ( a ) Initial and final reporting deadlines; and
( b ) The consequences of failure to comply.
# C_2014134EN.01000401.xml

| 3.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/4

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

2014/C 134/04

Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a), second indent, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are amended as follows:

1

2

On page 348, the following text is inserted:

On page 348, the following text is inserted:

| ‘8529 90 41 | Cabinets and cases |
| --- | --- |
| and | |
| 8529 90 49 | The terms ‘cabinets and cases’ include housings not equipped with electric or electronic components (for example, printed circuit boards, loudspeakers, cables, etc.).
  ‘Cabinets and cases’ equipped with electric or electronic components are excluded (for example, subheadings 8529 90 92 or 8529 90 97).
  Parts of ‘cabinets and cases’ are excluded from these subheadings.’ |

‘8529 90 41

Cabinets and cases

and

8529 90 49

The terms ‘cabinets and cases’ include housings not equipped with electric or electronic components (for example, printed circuit boards, loudspeakers, cables, etc.).

‘Cabinets and cases’ equipped with electric or electronic components are excluded (for example, subheadings 8529 90 92 or 8529 90 97).

Parts of ‘cabinets and cases’ are excluded from these subheadings.’

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 137, 6.5.2011, p. 1.

2

---
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Mark Nunis, certify that:

| 1. | I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 10-K/A of RLJ Entertainment, Inc.; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: April 29, 2016 |   | /s/ MARK NUNIS           |
|----------------------|--------|--------------------------|
|                 |   | Mark Nunis               |
|                 |   | Chief Accounting Officer |
#### § 309.21 What are examples of dolls and toys that are Indian products?

Dolls, toys, and related items made by an Indian, including, but not limited to, no face dolls, corn husk dolls, patchwork and palmetto dolls, reindeer horn dolls, lacrosse sticks, stick game articles, gambling sticks, gaming dice, miniature cradle boards, and yo-yos, are Indian products.

[68 FR 35170, June 12, 2003]
§ 273.115 Who determines the unique educational needs of eligible Indian students? ( a ) When a school district to be affected by a contract(s) for the education of Indians has a local school board composed of a majority of Indians, the local school board may act as the Indian Education Committee; otherwise, the parents of Indian children may elect an Indian Education Committee from among their number or a Tribal governing body(ies) of the Indian Tribe(s) affected by the contract(s) may specify one of the following entities to serve as the Indian Education Committee: ( 1 ) A Local Indian Committee or Committees; or
( 2 ) An Indian Advisory School Board or Boards.
( b ) The Tribal governing body(ies) of the Indian Tribe(s) affected by the contract(s) may specify one of the entities in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section at its discretion if the Indian Education Committee was established prior to January 4, 1975.
# C_2006294EN.01003803.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-128/06) (1)

1

(2006/C 294/78)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 108, 06.05.2005.

1

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6851

MARTY TARRELL GASTON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:22-cv-00015-MR)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 27, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marty Tarrell Gaston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6851 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Marty Tarrell Gaston seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here,

the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both 

that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gaston has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6851 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2