alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Globus Realty Corporation, Respondent, *v.*Fleetwood Terrace Inc., Appellant.

First Department,

March 14, 1949.

*Norman J. Steinberg*for appellant.

*Bernard R. Lauren*of counsel *(Leonard Wolfram*with him on the brief), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

To earn a commission it was incumbent on plaintiff to show that it had been hired by defendant as a broker and had produced a purchaser able and willing to enter into a contract for the purchase of the property upon all essential terms satisfactory to the seller.

On this record plaintiff failed to prove that defendant employed plaintiff as a broker in the transaction. Nowikas, plaintiff’s witness, who, the evidence - shows, was the only broker employed by defendant, had no authority whatever to bind defendant to payment of broker’s commissions to plaintiff as cobroker. Nowikas at the trial denied that during the negotiations he had ever told defendant or defendant’s *35attorney that he had plaintiff as a cobroker and further denied that Zimmerman, plaintiff’s representative, had in his presence told Schwartz, defendant’s representatives, that he was a cobroker; but on the contrary Nowikas testified that he introduced Zimmerman as representing a buyer’s syndicate.

And even if plaintiff had proved it had been employed as broker, it could not recover because it failed to establish that there was such meeting of the minds of the parties on all essential terms of the agreement to purchase as to warrant payment of commissions to plaintiff as broker. The applicable rule is stated in *Sibbald*v. *Bethlehem Iron Co.*(83 N. Y. 378, 382) as follows: “But in all the cases, under all and varying forms of expression, the fundamental and correct doctrine is, that the duty assumed by the broker is to bring the minds of the buyer and seller to an agreement for a sale, and the price and terms on which it is to be made, and until that is done his right to commissions does not accrue.” Here there was failure to agree concerning amortization of the mortgage, the date of closing, and the price, the prospective purchaser’s lawyer insisting upon a reduction of from $10,000 to $12,000 in the purchase price, based upon a claim that the seller had misrepresented taxes and rents. On the evidence, we find there was no misrepresentation or bad faith on defendant’s part as to the taxes or rents.

The case was tried before the court without a jury and this court should enter the judgment that the trial court should have entered (Civ. Prac. Act, § 584, subd. 2; *Bernardine*v. *City of New*York, 294 N. Y. 361, 366). Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure of plaintiff to prove the employment as broker and to prove a meeting of the minds on all the essential terms should have been granted.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed, with costs and the complaint dismissed, with costs to defendant-appellant.

Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously reversed, with costs and the complaint dismissed, with costs to the defendant-appellant. Settle order on notice.
|               |  |                                                                                                                                                  
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|EXHIBIT 32.1  |  | CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (the Issuer). The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Issuer.

Date: August 10, 2009



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ MARK P. MAYS       
|Name:  |  | Mark P. Mays           
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Issuer and will
be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
(No. 758

Claimant awarded $6,122.38 with interest.)

#### Arthur T. Walker, Executor Estate of Edward F. Searles, Deceased, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed January 29, 1925.*

Inheritance *tax-*— when *claimant entitled to refund, See. 10.*Where an inheritance tax has been erroneously assessed, and is paid, and und'er an order of court the estate is reappraised and the tax re-assessed, claimant is entitled to a refund of the difference between the amount of the tax paid and the amount found due upon the re-appraisement and' re-assessment with interest at 3%.

Taylor, Miller, Dickinson & Smith, for claimant.

Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General; George C. Dixon, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Phillips

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant, Arthur T. Walker, executor of estate of Edward F. Searles, deceased, files this declaration for refund of inheritance taxes claimed to be due him as such executor by reason of an erroneous assessment having been made heretofore, the appraisement and assessment having been made and the mistake discovered; thereafter on the 28th day of December, 1923, an order was made by the county judge of Cook county re-assessing and re-appraising said estate; a certified copy of such proceeding being filed herewith.

By reason of such re-assessment and re-appraisement the court found that the claimant was entitled to a refund of inheritance taxes, heretofore paid in the sum of $6,122.38.

The Attorney General admits the facts in this case as alleged by the claimant and consents in writing to an award in favor of the claimant in the said sum of $6,122.38 with 3% interest on said sum from December 28,1923.

The court therefore awards the claimant said sum of $6,122.38 with interest at the rate of 3% from December 28, 1923.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF REGISTEREDINDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Boardof Directors

LiquidmetalTechnologies, Inc.

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference of our Report of IndependentRegisteredPublic Accounting Firm dated May 9, 2005 on Management’s Report on InternalControl Over Financial Reporting as of December 31, 2004 included in this Form10-K/A, into the Company’s previously filed Registration Statement (File No.333-101447).

 
| /s/ Stonefield Josephson, Inc. |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Irvine, California             |
| March 16, 2006                 |

 

----
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4582 

To exclude striped bass from the anadromous fish doubling requirement 

in section 3406(b)(1) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2016 

Mr. DENHAM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To exclude striped bass from the anadromous fish doubling 

requirement in section 3406(b)(1) of the Central Valley 

Project Improvement Act, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Save Our Salmon Act’’ 

5 or the ‘‘SOS Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) California is home to many populations of 

9 native salmon and steelhead. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4582 IH

1 (2) Many of the native salmon and steelhead 

2 populations in California are listed under the En3 dangered Species Act of 1973. 

4 (3) The Central Valley Project Improvement 

5 Act (CVPIA) required a doubling of natural produc6 tion of Central Valley populations of anadromous 

7 fish within 10 years. 

8 (4) Striped bass are anadromous fish indige9 nous to the East Coast of the United States and are 

10 not native to the State of California. 

11 (5) Striped bass were included in the CVPIA’s 

12 fish doubling goal even though they are not a native 

13 species. 

14 (6) Striped bass prey on native salmon and 

15 steelhead. 

16 (7) Predation poses a serious threat to federally 

17 protected juvenile salmon and other native fish in 

18 California. 

19 (8) According to the National Marine Fisheries 

20 Service, reducing abundance of striped bass and 

21 other non-native predators must be achieved to pre22 vent extinction of Central Valley salmon and 

23 steelhead or to prevent the species from declining ir24 reversibly. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4582 IH

1 (9) Therefore, the CVPIA’s fish-doubling goal 

2 for two competing species is contradictory and coun3 terproductive for salmon and steelhead recovery. 

4 SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF STRIPED BASS. 

5 Section 3406(b)(1) of the Central Valley Project Im6 provement Act (title XXXIV of Public Law 102–575) is 

7 amended by inserting ‘‘(except striped bass)’’ after ‘‘nat8 ural production of anadromous fish’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0124

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RICHARD WAYNE SPARKS,

Defendant and Appellant. 

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until July 6, 2022, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

June 6 2022

06/06/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0124
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             384
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       51
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1872
<PP&E>                                           83022
<DEPRECIATION>                                   30555
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   54950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             9953
<BONDS>                                          65420
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (19164)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     54950
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 11691
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     5833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2190
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1068)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1068)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1068)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (12.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (12.15)
        

</TABLE>
!

!

Big Piney

Marbleton

Green

Ri v

e

r

T

30

N

R109W

T

29

N

T

28

N

R110W

R111W

New Fo rk

River

Green Riv e r

Big Piney

Marbleton

G

R111W

reen

Ri v

e

r

New Fo rk

River

Green Riv e r

£¤189

UV351

Bureau of Land Management

State

Private

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!Marbleton

Big Piney

Merna Cora

Daniel

Pinedale

Boulder

LaBarge SUBLETTE

LINCOLN

Map 2-33j

Ross Butte

Management Area

o

0 1 2 4

Miles

0 1 2 4

Kilometers

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

APPROVED PINEDALE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Ross Butte

Management Area

ROCK

SPRINGS

FIELD

OFFICE
### §3664. No offset

No Federal agency shall offset funds made available pursuant to this chapter for Indian tribal court membership organizations or Indian legal services organizations against other funds otherwise available for use in connection with technical or legal assistance to tribal justice systems or members of Indian tribes.

(Pub. L. 106–559, title I, §104, Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2781.)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 958

 971

 988

 980

 990

 1,004

 1,037

 1,031

 1,028

 1,047

 1,063

 1,065

 1,067

 1,042

 1,062

 1,073

 994

 950

 975

 1,015

 1,002

 1,028

 1,001

 1,001

 1,001

 991

 1,008

 982

 863

 919

 929

 932

 944

 967

 966

 955

 950

 992

 1,008

 1,009

 1,011

 1,016

 1,041

 1,040

 986

 1,004

 999

 926

 906

 928

 979

 986

 987

 963

 948

 962

 944

 964

 882

 778

 819

 882

 942

 958

 977

 973

 976

 970

 1,013

 1,021

 1,018

 1,032

 1,039

 1,053

 1,053

 1,017

 1,037

 1,045

 954

 921

 944

 1,003

 993

 1,009

 979

 971

 982

 961

 985

 945

 806

 870

 902

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 6, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

30 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

30 DAY

AVG 

MEAN

 26,121

 26,247

 26,398

 26,548

 26,709

 26,878

 27,067

 27,235

 27,398

 27,589

 27,772

 27,962

 28,160

 28,313

 28,481

 28,665

 28,756

 28,803

 28,879

 29,017

 29,156

 29,295

 29,391

 29,456

 29,522

 29,521

 29,583

 29,621

 29,507

 29,447

 29,407

 871

 875

 880

 885

 890

 896

 902

 908

 913

 920

 926

 932

 939

 944

 949

 956

 959

 960

 963

 967

 972

 977

 980

 982

 984

 984

 986

 987

 984

 982

 980

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

30 DAY ACCUM MEAN and 30 DAY AVG MEAN columns are 30 day runnings, except for April 1 and September 1, 

 where they do not go back 30 days.

VERNALIS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
### Th e HONORABLE DONALD D. ALSOP, United States District Judg e 1 

### for the District of Minnesota. 

# United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3775

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Thomas Robert Hubers, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 5, 1997 Filed: May 7, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Thomas Robert Hubers pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S .C. § 841(a), and the district court 1 sentenced him to 210 months imprisonment under the career-offende r Guideline, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (1990). We affirmed Hubers's sentence and the subsequent denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion . See United States v. Hubers , 938 F.2d 827, 829-3 0 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied , 502 U.S . 961 (1991); Hubers v. United States , 1993 WL 89019 (8th Cir. Mar. 30, 1993) (unpublished per curiam). Hubers then brought

### -2-

thi s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for resentencing, which the distric t court also denied. Hubers appeals, and we affirm. In support of his section 3582(c)(2) request for resentencing, Hubers argu ed that one of the state drug convictions underlying his career

offender status was a ctually a misdemeanor under state law, and would not disq ualifyhim from possessing a firearm under federal law. Sectio n 3582(c)(2) allows a d istrict court to reduce a defendant's prison term if the d efendant was sentenced "based on a sentencing range that ha s subseq uentlybeen lowered by the Sentencing Commission." Because th e sentencing range applied to Hubers has not been lowered, we agree with the district court that section 3582(c)(2) is inapplicable here. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.10

                                  ADDENDUM TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Addendum to Employment  Agreement (the  "Addendum")  dated as of October 8,
2004 is  entered  into by and  between  Y-Tel  International,  Inc,  a  Delaware
corporation  (hereinafter  referred to as the  "Employer")  and John Conroy,  an
individual (hereinafter referred to as the "Employee").


                                    RECITALS

       A. The Employer and Employee are parties to an Employment  Agreement (the
          "Agreement")  dated  September 27, 2004.

       B. Due to changes of circumstances the parties hereto desire to amend the
          Agreement as set forth below.

NOW  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the above  premises,  the  covenants  and
agreements  set forth  herein  and other  good and  valuable  consideration  the
receipt and  sufficiency  of which are hereby  acknowledged,  the parties hereby
amend the Agreement and agree as follows:

          1. Section 5.03(b) is hereby amended and shall read as follows:

                           "Section 5.03(b) Upon approval of a stock option plan
                           by Employer,  Employee shall be granted 500,000 stock
                           options,  exercisable at $0.55 per share. The options
                           can be  exercised  at any time after grant and expire
                           at 5:00 p.m. PST on September 30, 2014."

Other than as set forth in Paragraph 1 above the remaining  terms and conditions
of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF the parties  hereto have executed this Addendum this 8th day
of October 2004.


Y-Tel International, Inc.                    John Conroy


By:                                          By:
    ----------------------------                -----------------------------
         Steve Lipman                               John Conroy
Its:     Chief Executive Officer
### §403c. Identity of lessor; period of lease

Such leases may be made only by the individual Indian owner of the land or by the authorized representatives of the tribe or group of Indians to whom the land belongs, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative. Restricted allotments of deceased Indians, when the heirs or devisees cannot agree on a lease, may be leased for them in the manner prescribed by section 380 of this title. No lease shall be made by or on behalf of any tribe for a longer period than is or may be authorized by the tribal constitution, charter, or ordinances. Nothing contained in this section or section 403b of this title shall be construed to repeal any authority to lease restricted lands which any Indian, Indian tribe, or official of the Department of the Interior would have in the absence of such sections.

(Aug. 9, 1946, ch. 929, §2, 60 Stat. 962.)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY ELEV

 130.72

 130.74

 130.72

 130.67

 130.76

 130.82

 130.74

 130.73

 130.90

 130.93

 130.87

 130.81

 130.62

 130.70

 130.66

 130.65

 130.90

 130.85

 130.83

 130.85

 130.83

 130.84

 130.71

 130.74

 130.64

 130.73

 130.76

 130.84

 130.77

 130.79

 658

 660

 658

 652

 663

 669

 660

 659

 678

 682

 675

 668

 646

 656

 651

 650

 678

 673

 670

 673

 670

 671

 657

 660

 649

 659

 663

 671

 664

 666

STORAGE

+15

+2

-2

-6

+11

+6

-9

-1

+19

+4

-7

-7

-22

+10

-5

-1

+28

-5

-3

+3

-3

+1

-14

+3

-11

+10

+4

+8

-7

+2

CHANGE

574

601

595

576

599

598

578

559

542

513

490

472

504

573

585

591

580

536

517

512

518

532

552

576

545

530

552

561

575

606

INFLOW

 66

 67

 70

 72

 72

 72

 72

 69

 62

 61

 64

 65

 66

 64

 61

 61

 59

 58

 58

 58

 58

 60

 64

 65

 67

 68

 68

 68

 68

 68

PUTAH

 498

 531

 524

 505

 520

 521

 509

 490

 469

 448

 428

 409

 447

 502

 526

 530

 506

 480

 459

 451

 460

 469

 493

 507

 482

 455

 480

 487

 509

 535

PUTAH

 2

 2

 2

 2

 1

 2

 2

 1

 1

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 1

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

 2

C.F.S.

 .44

 .48

 .42

 .48

 .29

 .43

 .47

 .39

 .38

 .40

 .40

 .42

 .43

 .47

 .38

 .24

 .24

 .21

 .40

 .38

 .45

 .51

 .52

 .53

 .42

 .52

 .51

 .59

 .54

 .43

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-SOLANO PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2016 RUN DATE: 07/05/2016

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +23 16,642 14,630 1,951 52 12.77 .00

ACRE-FEET +23 33,009 29,019 3,870 103

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 3,870

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 29,019

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2015 20.52

 643

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK