alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Edgar T. Appleby et al., Appellants-Respondents. James F. Walsh Paper Company, Respondent-Appellant.

*Per Curiam.*

Under the provisions of section 4 of the Commercial Rent Law (L. 1945, eh. 3, as amd.), a reasonable rent may be determined in excess of the *757emergency rent in an amount which, presumptively, shall be sufficient to produce a net a.rmrial return, over and above the cost of maintenance and operation, of 6% on the fair value of the entire property including the land, plus 2% of principal for amortization of any mortgages thereon, or 2% per annum for depreciation on the fair value of improvements. The presumption that this represents a fair annual net return may be rebutted by the introduction of evidence establishing that the rental value of the demised premises does not justify the application of those percentages *(Schack*v. *Handel,*271 App. Div. 1). In the absence of such evidence, the said statutory percentages are applied to determine what is, in the language of the statute, “ a reasonable rent based on the fair rental value of the tenant’s commercial space ”. Except for the inadequate evidence of rental value introduced by the tenant, the parties at the first hearing proceeded as though a reasonable rent must be determined mechanically on the basis of the formula set forth in the statute, without relation otherwise to what “ the fair rental 'value of the tenant’s commercial space ” may be. *Schack*v. *Handel (supra)*holds that the words which have just been quoted from the statute, are not to be construed as indicating necessarily an inflexible application of the statutory formula, but leave room for variation of the formula. It can hardly have been the intention of the Legislature, for example, to direct the determination of a “ reasonable rent ” under the Emergency Rent Laws which would be in excess of what the premises would bring if no Emergency Rent Laws existed. While the tenant’s evidence showing the rental on the freeze date, and the rental actually paid for a single parcel of other unimproved land in the vicinity, may be relevant and have some tendency to indicate that proof to rebut the statutory formula may be available, it is, standing by itself, unsatisfactory and inadequate to that purpose. The motion for reargument presents no matters that were overlooked by the court, but emphasizes omissions in the present record, on account of which, in the interest of justice, a rehearing has been and should be allowed. The motion for reargument should be denied.

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

Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
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 EntreMed, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Dane R. Saglio, as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) 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 for the dates and periods covered by the Report. This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by
the Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used by any person or for any
reason other than as specifically required by law. November 9, 2004
    /s/ Dane R. SaglioDane R. SaglioChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

                         CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA, N.A.


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

                       Chase Manhattan Owner Trust 2001-A

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


         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Chase Manhattan
Bank USA, N.A. ("Chase USA"), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing
Agreement dated as of July 1, 2001 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") by and
between Chase USA and Chase Manhattan Auto Owner Trust 2001-A, as issuer (the
"Issuer"), does hereby certify that:

1.   A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from January
     1, 2002 until December 31, 2002 was conducted under my supervision.

2.   Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, fully
     performed in all material respects all its obligations, under the Sale and
     Servicing Agreement throughout such period and no material default in the
     performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except as set
     forth in paragraph 3 below.

3.   None.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 25th day of March 2003.



                                                  /s/ Richard J. Naeder
                                                  ----------------------
                                                  Richard J. Naeder
                                                  Authorized Signatory
### Part A—System Alignment
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 10(xii)

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                     TO THE
                       KULICKE AND SOFFA INDUSTRIES, INC.

                      1997 NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION PLAN
                           FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
              (As Amended and Restated Effective February 9, 1999)

         WHEREAS, Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. (the "Company") maintains
the Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. 1997 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (the "Plan") for the benefit of its non-employee
directors;

         WHEREAS, the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan at any time,
subject to certain inapplicable limitations; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend Section 5 of the Plan in order
(i) to reflect the recent split in the Company's common stock, and (ii) to
reduce from five to four the number of years over which options granted under
the Plan vest;

         NOW, THEREFORE, Section 5 (Terms and Conditions of Options) of the Plan
is hereby amended as follows:

         1.  Effective with respect to options granted after the July 2000 split
in the Company's common stock, Paragraph (a) of Section 5 is amended to read as
follows:

         (a) Option Grant Dates. Options to purchase 10,000 shares (as adjusted
         pursuant to Section 5(g)) shall be granted automatically to each
         eligible director on the last day of February on which the Company's
         shares are publicly-traded in each of the years 2001 through 2008.

         2.  Effective with respect to options granted after February 13, 2001,
the first paragraph of Paragraph (e) (Exercisability of Options) of Section 5 is
amended to read as follows:

             Options granted hereunder shall become exercisable in 25% annual
         increments commencing on the first anniversary of the date they are
         granted.

<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc. has caused this
Amendment No. 1 to be executed this ____ day of _________, 2001.



[SEAL]                                    KULICKE AND SOFFA INDUSTRIES, INC.



Attest:____________________               By:___________________________________
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.910 Right to make post-importation claim and refund duties.

Notwithstanding any other available remedy, where a good would have qualified as an originating good when it was imported into the United States but no claim for preferential tariff treatment was made, the importer of that good may file a claim for a refund of any excess duties at any time within one year after the date of importation of the good in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 10.911 of this subpart. Subject to the provisions of § 10.908 of this subpart, CBP may refund any excess duties by liquidation or reliquidation of the entry covering the good in accordance with § 10.912(c) of this subpart.
### **CHAPTER 3—NATIONAL TRADE UNIONS**
Editorial Note on Part 126
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 126 appear at 72 FR 50041, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 126.306 How will SBA process an application for HUBZone certification? ( a ) The D/HUB or designee is authorized to approve or decline applications for HUBZone certification. SBA will receive and review all applications and request supporting documents. SBA must receive all required information, supporting documents, and a completed HUBZone representation before it will begin processing a concern's application. SBA will not process incomplete packages. SBA will make its determination within 60 calendar days after receipt of a complete package.
( b ) The burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility is on the applicant concern. If a concern does not provide requested information within the allotted time provided by SBA, or if it submits incomplete information, SBA may draw an adverse inference and presume that the information that the applicant failed to provide would demonstrate ineligibility and deny certification on this basis. ( 1 ) If a concern submits inconsistent information that results in SBA's inability to determine the concern's compliance with any of the HUBZone eligibility requirements, SBA will decline the concern's application.
( 2 ) If, during the processing of an application, SBA determines that an applicant has knowingly submitted false information, regardless of whether correct information would cause SBA to deny the application, and regardless of whether correct information was given to SBA in accompanying documents, SBA will deny the application.
( c ) SBA's decision will be based on the facts set forth in the application, any information received in response to SBA's request for clarification, any independent research conducted by SBA, and any changed circumstances.
( d ) In order to be certified into the program, the applicant must be eligible as of the date it submitted its application and at the time the D/HUB issues a decision. An applicant must inform SBA of any changes to its circumstances that occur after its application and before its certification that may affect its eligibility. SBA will consider such changed circumstances in determining whether to certify the concern.
( e ) If SBA approves the application, it will send a written notice to the concern and designate the concern as a certified HUBZone small business concern in DSBS (or successor system) as described in § 126.307.
( f ) If SBA denies the application, it will send a written notice to the concern and state the specific reasons for denial.
( g ) SBA will presume that notice of its decision was provided to an applicant if SBA sends a communication to the concern at a mailing address, email address, or fax number provided in the concern's profile in the System for Award Management (or successor system).
[84 FR 65244, Nov. 26, 2019, as amended at 88 FR 26212, Apr. 27, 2023]
#### James Higgins, Respondent, v. John F. Partello, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
[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 Med Gen, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended September 30 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report'), I, Jack Chien, Chief Financial 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:

         (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 result of operations of the Company.


January 20, 2006

                                  /s/ Paul B. Kravitz
                                  ---------------------------
                                  Paul B. Kravitz,
                                  Principal Executive Officer
§ 115.55 Termination of approval. Approval of a road vehicle terminates: ( a ) Upon expiration of the certificate of approval; or
( b ) Upon a change in the road vehicle by a major repair or alteration of any of the essential features required in § 115.51. Repairs by replacement in kind do not constitute a change of the essential features.
§ 350.14 Amendments to State plans. ( a ) The State may amend a plan submitted to FEMA for review and approval under § 350.7 at any time during the review process or may amend a plan at any time after FEMA approval has been granted under § 350.12. A State must amend its plan in order to extend the coverage of the plan to any new nuclear power facility which becomes operational after a FEMA approval or in case of any other significant change. The State plan shall remain in effect as approved while any significant change is under review.
( b ) A significant change is one which involves the evaluation and assessment of a planning standard or which involves a matter which, if presented with the plan, would need to have been considered by the Deputy Administrator for the National Preparedness Directorate in making a decision that State or local plans and preparedness are: ( 1 ) Adequate to protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the nuclear power facility by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological emergency; and
( 2 ) Capable of being implemented.
( c ) A significant change will be processed in the same manner as if it were an initial plan submission. However, the Regional Administrator may determine that certain procedures, such as holding a public meeting or a complete exercise, would be unnecessary. The existing FEMA approval shall remain in effect while any significant changes are under review.
( d ) Changes, such as a change in a telephone number, that are not significant as defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, but are necessary to maintain currency of the plan, should be forwarded to the Regional Administrator.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-cv-22785-UU

VICTOR ARIZA, 

Plaintiff,

Vs.

YARDHOUSE USA, INC,

a foreign for-profit corporation,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff VICTOR ARIZA ("Plaintiff"), and Defendant YARDOUSE USA, INC. 

("Defendant") (Plaintiff and Defendant are collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their 

respective undersigned attorneys, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, hereby stipulate to a dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims in the action with prejudice. 

The Parties shall bear their own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. All Parties consent to the form 

and content of this Stipulation.

Dated: October 23, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO

Counsel for Plaintiff DURAN, P.A.

4800 North Hiatus Road Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

Sunrise, FL 33351-7919 4640 N.W. 7th Street

T. 954/362-3800 Miami, FL 33126-2309

954/362-3779 (Facsimile) T. 305/266-9780 

Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com 305/269-8311 (Facsimile)

Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com 

By____s/ Roderick V. Hannah __ By ___s/ Pelayo M. Duran ______

RODERICK V. HANNAH PELAYO M. DURAN

Fla. Bar No. 435384 Fla. Bar No. 0146595

Case 1:20-cv-22785-UU Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 1 of 2
RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A.

Attorneys for Defendant

101 North Monroe Street, Suite 120

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(850) 222-6550

nsmith@rumberger.com

By s/Nicole Sieb Smith 

NICOLE SIEB SMITH

Fla. Bar No.0017056

Case 1:20-cv-22785-UU Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2020 Page 2 of 2
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00268-CV

Vincent Williams, Appellant

v.

Cherese Wheelock, CRNA; David Harris, M.D.; and Capitol Anesthesiology Association,

Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-11-003461, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

On June 25, 2014, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to appellant Vincent Williams

that the reporter’s record was due on June 4, 2014, and that it was overdue. The Clerk requested a

response by July 7, 2014, and notified appellant that the appeal would be considered without the

reporter’s record if he did not respond to this Court by that date. On July 23, 2014, this Court

received a document from appellant that stated that he was in the process of “acquiring court records,

affidavit of indigence, and securing a lawyer.”

On July 29, 2014, the Clerk of this Court sent notice to appellant that his brief was

due on July 25, 2014, and that it was overdue. The Clerk requested a response by August 8, 2014,

and notified appellant that this Court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution if appellant

failed to file a brief by that date unless appellant reasonably explained the failure and appellee was
not significantly injured by the failure. On August 13, 2014, the Clerk of this Court received a

document from appellant requesting “motion of extension to secure records and attorneytime needed

120 days.” The document does not address injury to appellee by appellant’s failure to comply. 

Further, motions for extension must be accompanied by a certificate of service and a certificate of

conference. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 9.5, 10.1. The document therefore is rejected.

If this Court does not receive a satisfactory response to this Court’s notices and this

order by August 29, 2014, this Court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. No further

extensions will be granted.

It is ordered August 19, 2014.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

2
§ 206.343 Scope. ( a ) The limitations on disaster assistance as set forth in this subpart apply only to FEMA actions taken on a unit of the Coastal Barrier Resources System or any conduit to such unit, including, but not limited to a bridge, causeway, utility, or similar facility.
( b ) FEMA assistance having a social program orientation which is unrelated to development is not subject to the requirements of these regulations. This assistance includes: ( 1 ) Individual and Family Grants that are not for acquisition or construction purposes;
( 2 ) Crisis counseling;
( 3 ) Disaster Legal services; and
( 4 ) Disaster unemployment assistance.
Exhibit
      32.2





Ener1,
      Inc.


500
      West
      Cypress Creek Road-Suite 100


Ft.
      Lauderdale, Florida, 33309





May
      24,
      2006





Securities
      and Exchange Commission


100
      F
      Street, NE


Washington,
      DC 20549





Re:
      Certification Of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec.
      1350





Dear
      Ladies and Gentlemen:





In
      connection with the accompanying Amendment No. 3 to Quarterly Report on Form
      10-QSB of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, Gerard Herlihy, Chief Financial
      Officer of Ener1, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





1)
            such
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Ener1, Inc., for the quarter ended
                September 30, 2005, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
                Ener1,
                Inc., for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents,
                in all
                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
                of
                Ener1, Inc.








/s/
                Gerard Herlihy
              Gerard
                Herlihy
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Duly
                Authorized Principal Financial and
              Accounting
                Officer and Duly Authorized Officer)











A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
      document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
      required by Section 906, has been provided to Ener1, Inc. and will be
      retained by Ener1, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.





This
      certification is being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.2 to Ener1, Inc.’s
      quarterly report and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject
      to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by
      reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act,
      except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a
      filing.
§ 12.100 Importations in good faith; common or contract carriage. ( a ) *Exportation in lieu of seizure.* Upon a claim that the importer acted in good faith without knowledge of applicable laws and regulations, Customs officers may authorize detained inadmissible knives to be exported otherwise than in the mails, at no expense to the Government, under the procedures of §§ 18.25 through 18.27 of this chapter.
( b ) *Common or contract carriers.* In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 1244(1), excepted from the penalties of the Act are the shipping, transporting, or delivering for shipment in interstate commerce, in the ordinary course of business of common or contract carriage, of any switchblade knife. However, imported switchblade knives as defined in § 12.95(a) so shipped or transported to a port of entry or place of Customs examination are prohibited importations subject to §§ 12.95-12.103 and disposition as therein required, authorized, or permitted.
[T.D. 71-243, 36 FR 18860, Sept. 23, 1971, as amended by T.D. 90-50, 55 FR 28192, July 10, 1990]
#### Leader Theatre Corporation, Appellant, v. Randforce Amusement Corporation et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [186 Misc. 280.]
### §117f. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 117f was editorially reclassified as section 5539 of this title.