alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner-Trustee of FL Receivables Trust 2002-A, Appellant, v Burger King Corporation et al., Respondents.

[826 NYS2d 205]

*402Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered December 7, 2005, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered November 18, 2005, which, in an action for tortious interference with contract, granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment. Order, same court and Justice, entered June 8, 2006, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

As a creditor of the subject franchisees, defendant franchisor had an economic interest justifying interference with plaintiffs loan agreements with the franchisees *(see Ultramar Energy v Chase Manhattan Bank,*179 AD2d 592, 592-593 [1992]), provided the interference was not motivated by malice or accomplished through illegal means *(see Foster v Churchill,*87 NY2d 744, 750-751 [1996]). Plaintiff asserts that the franchisor and defendant financial consultant, supposedly engaged by the franchisor to assist its insolvent franchisees in restructuring their debt, induced the franchisees to breach their loan agreements with plaintiff, and to prefer payment of their debts to the franchisor over those to plaintiff, by fraudulently concealing from the franchisees that the consultant was the franchisor’s agent acting solely on the franchisor’s behalf. We reject this claim for several reasons. First, there was no misrepresentation. Documentary evidence shows that the franchisor disclosed to the franchisees that it would be paying the consultant’s fees and “directing” the restructuring programs that the consultant was engaged to “administer.” Second, because the relationship between the franchisor and franchisees was not a fiduciary one *(Marcella & Co. v Avon Prods.,*282 AD2d 718, 719 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 721 [2001]), the franchisor had no affirmative duty to disclose that the consultant was acting on its behalf rather than the franchisees’ *(see Shisgal v Brown,*21 AD3d 845, 848 [2005]). Third, the franchisees were in breach of their loan agreements with plaintiff before defendants committed the alleged interference, and plaintiffs allegations provide no basis *403for inferring that the franchisees would have preferred plaintiff over the franchisor but for the alleged concealment *(see Cantor Fitzgerald Assoc. v Tradition N. Am.,*299 AD2d 204 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 508 [2003]; *Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Interstate Cigar Co. v Interstate Distrib.,*210 AD2d 283, 285 [1994] [nothing improper about preferring certain creditors over others]). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments, including that there should be further disclosure and that its motion to renew should have been granted, and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Sullivan, NardeUi and Malone, JJ. *[See*10 Misc 3d 1053(A), 2005 NY Slip Op 51943(11) (2005).]
ck0001528985-ex103_649.htm



 

Exhibit 10.3

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF MASTER MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT

1. Effective as of January 1, 2016, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) in hand paid and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Master Real Estate Management Agreement dated October 18, 2012 (the “Management Agreement”), by and between Inland Real Estate Income Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation, and INLAND NATIONAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Inland National”), is hereby assigned from Inland National to Inland Commercial Real Estate Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Inland Commercial”), with Inland Commercial succeeding to all of the powers of Inland National, including, without limitation, judicial and non-judicial enforcement of all of the terms of all leases and tenancies of the property managed under the Management Agreement, including, without limitation, evictions, enforcement of lease covenants and recovery of monies from tenants and lease guarantors, and entering into contracts for property operations, repairs, maintenance and insurance as granted to the “Manager” under the Management Agreement.

2. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Assignment and Assumption of Master Management Agreement is not a termination of such agreement under Section 4 of the Management Agreement and that none of the sub-management agreements entered into with respect to an individual property pursuant to Section 3 of the Management Agreement shall terminate as a result of this Assignment and Assumption of Master Management Agreement.

WHEREFORE, the parties have executed this Assignment and Assumption of Master Management Agreement as of the date first above written.

 


	
INLAND NATIONAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES,

	
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company




 


	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Larry Sajdak

	
 
	
 
	
Its: President




 


	
INLAND COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES

	
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company




 


	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Daniel Zatloukal

	
 
	
 
	
Its: President




Acknowledged and Agreed, 

including with respect to Section 2 above:

INLAND REAL ESTATE INCOME TRUST, INC.,

a Maryland corporation

 


	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ JoAnn McGuinness

	
 
	
 
	
Its: President and Chief Operating Officer
UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C •>- ! '"^ ' b y i

TRAVE LGROUP , INC. , D/B/ A REPUBLI C AI RTRAVE L AND SCO T SPENCE R AIRLIF T GROUP , INC . AN D RICHAR D BERNAR D Unauthorize dAi r

Transportation , Unfai r an dDeceptiv e Practice s an dUnfai r

Method s o f

Competition , an d Violation s o f

Publi c Charte r

Rule s EXPRES S ON EINTERNATIONAL , INC . Unfai r an dDeceptiv e Practice s an dUnfai r Method s o f Competition , an dViolation s o f Publi c Charte r

Rule s Enforcemen t

Proceedin g DOT-OST-1995-27 2 formerl y Docke t 4923 3

STATU S REPOR T Th e Offic e of

th e Assistan t

Genera l Counse l for

Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an d Proceeding s ("Enforcemen t Office") , pursuan t

t o You r Honor' s Marc h22 , 2006 , Orde r stayin g this proceeding , file s thi s report detailin g th e curren t

statu s o f thi s proceedin g an d settlemen t

negotiations . Th e Departmen t

ha s no t rule don th e outstandin g motion s file dby Respondent s andoppose db y th e Enforcemen t Offic e i n Ascen dAviatio n Group , Docke t OST-2004

- 17486 .Ther e hav e bee n n o further settlemen t

discussions . Date : Ma y 27 , 2011 . Respectfull y submitted , Samue l Podberesky Assistan t General Counse l for Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s Dayto n Lehman . Jr . Deputy Assistan t

Genera l Counse l for Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s ( > Willia mJ . wagne r Senio r Trial At t Unite dState s Departmen t o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Aviatio n Enforcemen t

an dProceeding s 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Roo m96-42 9 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL ; 202-366-934 2 FAX : 202-366-715 2Docke t No . DOT-OST-1995-27 2 I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s 27t hda y o f

May , 2011 , atru e an dcorrec t cop y o f th e foregoin g Statu s Repor t wa s serve di n th e followin g manne r t o th e following : Origina l U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Docke t Operations , M-3 0 Wes t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mW12-14 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 B y Persona l Servic e Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 0 TEL : (202 ) 366-214 2 FAX : (202 ) 366-753 6 B y Firs t Clas s Mai l Sco t Spence r SB D Aircraf

t Service s 25 5 S Lelan dNorto n Wa y Sa mBernardino , C A 9240 8
#### § 41.2 Response to notification.

Upon issuance of a Commission order that notes a finding or findings, or proposed remedy or remedies, or both, in any combination, with which the audited person has disagreed, the audited person may: Acquiesce in the findings and/or proposed remedies by not timely responding to the Commission order, in which case the Commission may issue an order approving them or taking other action; or challenge the finding or findings and/or any proposed remedies, with which it disagreed by timely notifying the Commission in writing that it requests Commission review by means of a shortened procedure or, if there are material facts in dispute which require cross-examination, a trial-type hearing.

[Order 675, 71 FR 9706, Feb. 27, 2006]
### §1421g. Authorization of appropriations

There is authorized to be appropriated—

(1) to the Secretary for carrying out this subchapter (other than sections 1421d and 1421f of this title) $250,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2028;

(2) to the Secretary for carrying out section 1421f of this title, $250,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2028; and

(3) to the Fund, $500,000 for for 1 each of fiscal years 2023 through 2028.

(Pub. L. 92–522, title IV, §409, formerly title III, §308, as added Pub. L. 102–587, title III, §3003(a), Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5066; renumbered title IV, §408, and amended Pub. L. 103–238, §24(b), (c)(5), (6), Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 565, 566; renumbered §409, Pub. L. 106–555, title II, §202(a)(1), Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2767; Pub. L. 117–263, div. J, title CIV, §10409, Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3992.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Par. (1). Pub. L. 117–263, §10409(1), substituted "2023 through 2028;" for "1993 and 1994;".

Par. (2). Pub. L. 117–263, §10409(2), substituted "2023 through 2028;" for "1993 and 1994;".

Par. (3). Pub. L. 117–263, §10409(3), substituted "for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2028." for "fiscal year 1993."

1994—Par. (1). Pub. L. 103–238, §24(c)(5), made technical amendment to references to sections 1421d and 1421f of this title to reflect renumbering of corresponding sections of original act.

Par. (2). Pub. L. 103–238, §24(c)(6), made technical amendment to reference to section 1421f of this title to reflect renumbering of corresponding section of original act.

1 So in original.
PUBLIC LAW 113–214—DEC. 16, 2014 128 STAT. 2087 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3085: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

July 14, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 3, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–214 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 3349 West 

111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ‘‘Captain Herbert Johnson Memorial 

Post Office Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CAPTAIN HERBERT JOHNSON MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 

BUILDING. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 3349 West 111th Street in Chicago, Illinois, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Captain Herbert Johnson 

Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Captain Herbert Johnson Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Approved December 16, 2014. 

Dec. 16, 2014 

[H.R. 3085] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1 with PUBLAWLAW
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14697-14698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6190]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,305]


Shorewood Packaging, a Business Unit of International Paper, 
Inc., Springfield, OR; Notice of Negative Determination on 
Reconsideration

    On January 26, 2010, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration applicable to 
workers and former workers of Shorewood Packaging, a business unit of 
International Paper, Inc., Springfield, Oregon (the subject firm). The 
Department's Notice was published in the Federal Register on February 
16, 2010 (75 FR 7030).
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or

[[Page 14698]]

    (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The initial negative determination was based on the findings that 
neither imports of articles like or directly competitive with packaging 
produced by the subject firm nor a shift in production to a foreign 
country by the subject firm contributed importantly to worker 
separations at the subject firm.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information and alleged that Shorewood Packaging shifted 
overseas the production at Springfield, Oregon.
    Information obtained from the subject firm during the 
reconsideration investigation clarified that the worker group was part 
of the Home Entertainment group. The subject firm also confirmed that 
production of Home Entertainment group articles were not shifted 
overseas. Rather, production was shifted to facilities located within 
the United States. Further, the articles produced at foreign facilities 
are neither like nor directly competitive with the Home Entertainment 
group packaging produced at the Springfield, Oregon facility.

Conclusion

    After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative 
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance 
for workers and former workers of Shorewood Packaging, a business unit 
of International Paper, Inc., Springfield, Oregon, on this 4th day of 
March, 2011

Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-6190 Filed 3-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Amexdrug Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Jack Amin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge 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 the
          operation of the Company.


/s/ Jack Amin
-----------------------
Jack Amin
Chief Executive Officer
March 29, 2004
Science.gov provides access to millionsof authoritative scientific research results from U.S. federal agencies.

Science.gov is governed by

## Federal Agency Members
EXHIBIT 99.3

              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 on Form 10-QSB of ITS Networks Inc.
(the  Company)  for  the  quarter  ended  December  31,  2003, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  Report), the
undersigned  Chief  Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company
each  hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.

Dated:  February  19,  2004


     -----------------------------            -------------------------------
     Gustavo Gomez, Director,                 Herman  de  Haas,
     Chief Executive Officer,                 Director, Executive Vice
     President, Chief Financial               President and Chief Operating
     Officer and Treasurer                    Officer
#### In the Matter of Manufacturers Trust Company, Judgment Creditor, Appellant, *v.*Richard Sullivan, Judgment Debtor, Respondent.

First Department,

July 2, 1943.

*541
      *Nathan Waxman*of counsel *(Newman & Bisco,*attorneys), for appellant.

*Robert H. Spelman*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

As the finding of Special Term apparently was that the conduct of the judgment debtor was contemptuous, it might have fined him not to exceed $250, even though the amount of actual loss to the judgment creditor was not established, *(Socialistic Co-op. Pub. Assn.*v. *Kuhn,*164 N. Y. 473.) The record establishes that the imposition of such fine was warranted.

The order, so far as appealed from, should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted to the extent of fining the judgment debtor $250.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.

Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion granted to the extent of fining the judgment debtor $250. Settle order on notice.
### §192b–8. Description of parcels of land

The aforesaid parcels A, C, and D, and the combined parcels A and B are, subject to minor revisions or corrections of a technical nature, more particularly described as follows:

### parcel a

Beginning at the southeast corner of section 31, township 4 north, range 75 west of the sixth principal meridian; thence north 800.0 feet along the east line of said section 31; thence west 1,000.0 feet; thence south 134.06 feet; thence west 329.75 feet; thence south 166.94 feet; thence west 1,078.60 feet; thence south 497.82 feet, more or less, to the south line of said section 31; thence east along the south line of said section 31 to the point of beginning, containing 35 acres more or less.

### parcel c

Beginning at a point on the west line of section 32, township 4 north, range 75 west of the sixth principal meridian, 800 feet north of the southwest corner of said section 32; thence east 660.0 feet; thence north 520.0 feet; thence east 660.0 feet; thence north 1,325.94 feet; thence west to the west line of said section 32; thence south along said west line of said section 32 to the point of beginning, containing 48 acres, more or less.

### parcel d

Beginning at a point 800.0 feet north and 660.0 feet east of the southwest corner of section 32, township 4 north, range 75 west of the sixth principal meridian; thence east 1,962.18 feet; thence north 520.0 feet; thence west 1,962.18 feet; thence south 520.0 feet to the point of beginning, containing 23.5 acres, more or less.

### combined parcels a and b

Beginning at the corner common to sections 31 and 32, township 4 north, range 75 west, and sections 5 and 6, township 3 north, range 75 west, sixth principal meridian; thence south 88 degrees 55 minutes east, 660.0 feet along the south section line of said section 32; thence north 800.0 feet; thence west 660.0 feet, more or less, to a point on the section line common to said sections 31 and 32; thence continuing west 1,000.0 feet; thence south 134.06 feet; thence west 329.75 feet; thence south 166.94 feet; thence west 1,078.6 feet; thence south 497.82 feet, more or less, to a point on the south section line of said section 31; thence south 89 degrees 24 minutes east, 2,389.47 feet along the south section line of said section 31 to the point of beginning; the tract as described containing approximately 47 acres.

(Pub. L. 87–146, §3, Aug. 17, 1961, 75 Stat. 383.)
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PAICE LLC, THE ABELL FOUNDATION, INC.,

Appellants

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1746, 2016-2034

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. 

IPR2014-00904, IPR2014-01416.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

RUFFIN B. CORDELL, Fish & Richardson, PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellants. Also represented by 

TIMOTHY W. RIFFE, BRIAN JAMES LIVEDALEN, DANIEL 

TISHMAN. 

MATTHEW J. MOORE, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by 

GABRIEL BELL; JOHN P. RONDINI, FRANK A. ANGILERI, 

ANDREW B. TURNER, Brooks Kushman PC, Southfield, MI.

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, MAYER, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 April 21, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
### §2313. Retention beyond term of enlistment in case of disability

Any enlisted member of the Coast Guard in the active service whose term of enlistment expires while he is suffering disease or injury incident to service and not due to misconduct, and who is in need of medical care or hospitalization, may, with his consent, be retained in such service beyond the expiration of his term of enlistment. Any such enlisted member shall be entitled to receive at Government expense medical care or hospitalization and his pay and allowances, including credit for longevity, until he shall have recovered to such extent as would enable him to meet the physical requirements for reenlistment, or until it shall have been ascertained by competent authority of the Coast Guard that the disease or injury is of a character that recovery to such an extent would be impossible. Any enlisted member whose enlistment is so extended shall be subject to forfeitures in the same manner and to the same extent as if his term of enlistment had not expired. Nothing contained in this section shall prevent any enlisted member from being held in the service without his consent under section 2314 of this title.

(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 523, §366; Pub. L. 98–557, §15(a)(3)(A), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2865; renumbered §2313 and amended Pub. L. 115–282, title I, §§113(b), 123(b)(2), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4221, 4240.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 14, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §35b (Dec. 12, 1941, ch. 566, 55 Stat. 797).

The parenthetical part, which has no application insofar as the Coast Guard is concerned, has been eliminated.

Inasmuch as the act cited above applies equally to the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, as well as the Coast Guard, it is not scheduled for repeal but is being amended by section 14 of this act to eliminate reference to the Coast Guard.

Changes were made in phraseology. 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–282, §123(b)(2), substituted "section 2314" for "section 367".

Pub. L. 115–282, §113(b), renumbered section 366 of this title as this section.

1984—Pub. L. 98–557 substituted reference to enlisted member for reference to enlisted man in four places.
#### § 2.27 [Reserved]