alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1)ISMISSEI) and Opinion Filed January 1$, 2013.

In The

Qtnurt üí Appiats

Fiftli 1itrirt nf &it Ua1I

No. 05-12-00710-CV

DESTANY ATTAWAY, Appellant

V.

JACOLBY CLARK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-06356

OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald. Fillmore and Evans

Opinion by Justice FitzGerald

Appellant’s brief is overdue. By letter dated October 5. 2012, we notified appellant the

time for filing her brief had expired. We directed appellant to file her brief and an extension

motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do SO would result in the

dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not Illed her brief, an extension motion, or

otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. App. p. 38.8 (A)(1): 42.3(b),(c).

- 4ERR)11tZGERALD

J UST)E

/

1207 1OF.P05
(!oitrt tif pa1

Fift1i ii;1rirt Lu iixa it Ja11ui

JUDGMENT

Destany Attaway. Appellant

No. 05-I 2-007 l0-CV

Jacolby Clark. Appellee

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District

Court. Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF- 1 2-06356.

Opinion delivered by Justice Fitz(ierald.

Justices Fillmore and Evans participating.

In accordance with this Court’s Opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSEI).

Ii is ORDEREI) that appellee Jacolby Clark recover his costs of this appeal from

appellant Destany Attaway.

Judgment entered this 1 S” day of January, 2013.

— KERRY P. Fli7Gl.R.\Ll

II ,S I l( •I
### Part F—Family Support Centers
#### Sandra Pettit Dowd, Formerly Known as Sandra J. Pettit, Appellant-Respondent, v Alliance Mortgage Company, Respondent-Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 558]

*895In a putative class action to recover damages, inter alia, for violation of Reeil Property Law § 274-a, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated March 23, 2005, as granted those branches of the defendant’s motion which were to dismiss the causes of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment and for money had and received, and the defendant cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied those branches of its motion which were to dismiss the causes of action to recover damages for violations of Real Property Law § 274-a and General Business Law § 349 (a).

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for money had and received and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff, and the cause of action to recover damages for money had and received is reinstated.

The plaintiff purchased a condominium that was partially funded by a loan secured by a mortgage in favor of the defendant mortgage company. When the plaintiff contracted to sell the condominium, she requested a payoff statement from the defendant. The defendant provided the statement but charged the plaintiff a $20 “priority handling fee” and unspecified “Additional Fees.” After paying those amounts, the plaintiff commenced this putative class action to recover damages, inter alia, for violations of Real Property Law § 274-a and General Business Law § 349 (a), and for unjust enrichment and money had and received. The defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for money had and received.

Pursuant to Real Property Law § 274-a (2), the defendant was prohibited from charging the plaintiff for providing mortgage-related documents (see *Dougherty v North Fork Bank,*301 AD2d 491 [2003]; *Negrin v Norwest Mtge.,*263 AD2d 39 [1999]). Those documents include a payoff statement (see *Dougherty v North Fork Bank, supra; Negrin v Norwest Mtge., supra).*Neither the assertion that the plaintiff voluntarily *896agreed to pay those fees nor the absence of allegations of a written demand for the payoff statement constitutes a defense *(see Dougherty v North Fork Bank, supra; Negrin v Norwest Mtge., supra).*We decline the defendant’s invitation to reexamine our holding in *Negrin*to that effect. The complaint also sufficiently alleged causes of action to recover damages for violations of General Business Law § 349 (a), and for money had and received *(see Dougherty v North Fork Bank, supra).*

The plaintiffs remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J.P., Crane, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.
### subpart 1—grants to public and private entities
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL**

**EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Bekem Metals, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yermek Kudabayev, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, 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. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date:  May 11, 2009 | By: | /s/ Yermek Kudabayev |  
 

Yermek Kudabayev

 

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

  |
|---------------------|-----|----------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| **Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)** | 3 Months Ended                                                                                                                                                               |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
||
| **Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]** |                                                                                                                                                                         |
| New Accounting Pronouncements                             | New accounting pronouncementsThere are no new accounting pronouncements that would likely materially affect the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_AccountingPoliciesAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Disclosure of accounting policy pertaining to new accounting pronouncements that may impact the entity's financial reporting. Includes, but is not limited to, quantification of the expected or actual impact.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_NewAccountingPronouncementsPolicyPolicyTextBlock**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**nonnum:textBlockItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# February 2012, Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206.

Accession Number: ML12059A094

Date Released: Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML12059A101 - February 2012, Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. (3 page(s), 3/14/2012)
    - ML12060A018 - February 2012, Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206 - Enclosures. (22 page(s), 3/14/2012)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
EX-10.10



 





Exhibit 10.10




Via UPS Overnight




June 12, 2007




Teresa M. Riggs

President

BATUS Japan, Inc.

103 Foulk Road, Suite 117

Wilmington, Delaware 19803




     Re: Contract Manufacturing Agreement dated 30th July 2004, and Guidelines for
Pricing New Products and Line Extensions dated 14th October 2005, which are by and
between R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and BATUS Japan, Inc



Dear Teresa:




          R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJRTC) and BATUS Japan, Inc. (BATUS Japan) are parties to the
Contract Manufacturing Agreement (“the Agreement”) referenced above, and the Guidelines for Pricing
New Products and Line Extensions referenced above (which is part of a document entitled “Principles
For BATUSJ and RJRTC To Follow When Considering Matters Arising From The Contract Manufacturing
Agreement.” Those documents are incorporated herein by reference. RJRTC and BATUS Japan deem it
mutually beneficial to clarify how application of the PPI (as defined in the Agreement) to current
pricing guidelines is treated when new components and other items are incorporated within product
that RJRTC manufactures for BATUS Japan. In light of this, RJRTC and BATUS Japan agree to amend
Section 9 of the Guidelines for Pricing New Products and Line Extensions by replacing that Section
9 with the following:





	 	9.	 	For specification changes to existing products which already have a current price, the
cost, and resulting price, will be adjusted as follows:






	 	–	 	If a standard price already exists for the new component in connection with a product
RJRTC already produces, then the difference, plus 10%, will be added (or subtracted) to
the current price to arrive at a new price.
	 
	 	–	 	If a standard price for the new component does not currently exist, then a standard
cost will be established via RJRTC’s normal quote/bidding process. For calculation
purposes, the difference in price between the existing component and new component, plus
10% of that difference, will be added (or subtracted) to the current price of the product.
PPI (as defined in the Agreement) and adjustment of the price of the product using PPI
pursuant to the Agreement shall remain in effect, and shall apply to new components when
formulating the price of such products.





          All other terms and conditions of the Agreement and the document entitled “Principles For
BATUSJ and RJRTC To Follow When Considering Matters Arising From The Contract Manufacturing
Agreement” that are in place as of this letterhead date and not expressly amended by this letter
shall remain in full force and effect.



          If the foregoing accurately sets forth our understanding, please indicate by executing and
returning two originals.



Agreed and accepted:




R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY




 









 








By: /s/ Dan Snyder            




Title: EVP Operations




Date: 6/25/07




BATUS JAPAN, INC.




By: /s/ Andrew Panaccione            




Title: VP & Secretary




Date: June 20, 2007
|  |  | NSDI Strategy- Executive Order 12906 , "Coordinating Geographic   Data Acquisition and Access: National Spatial Data Infrastructure", April   1994.    A Strategy for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, April 1997. |
|--|--|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
§ 791.102 Confidentiality of information. ( a ) Information or documentary materials, not otherwise publicly or commercially available, submitted or filed with the Secretary under this part will not be released publicly except to the extent required by law.
( b ) The Secretary may disclose information or documentary materials that are not otherwise publicly or commercially available and referenced in paragraph (a) in the following circumstances: ( 1 ) Pursuant to any administrative or judicial proceeding;
( 2 ) Pursuant to an act of Congress;
( 3 ) Pursuant to a request from any duly authorized committee or subcommittee of Congress;
( 4 ) Pursuant to any domestic governmental entity, or to any foreign governmental entity of a United States ally or partner, information or documentary materials, not otherwise publicly or commercially available and important to the national security analysis or actions of the Secretary, but only to the extent necessary for national security purposes, and subject to appropriate confidentiality and classification requirements;
( 5 ) Where the parties or a party to a transaction have consented, the information or documentary material that are not otherwise publicly or commercially available may be disclosed to third parties; and
( 6 ) Any other purpose authorized by law.
( c ) This section shall continue to apply with respect to information and documentary materials that are not otherwise publicly or commercially available and submitted to or obtained by the Secretary even after the Secretary issues a final determination pursuant to § 791.109.
( d ) The provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1905, relating to fines and imprisonment and other penalties, shall apply with respect to the disclosure of information or documentary material provided to the Secretary under these regulations.
[86 FR 4923, Jan. 19, 2021. Redesignated and amended at 89 FR 58265, July 18, 2024]
#### Moses Banks, plaintiff in error, v. George P. Uhl, defendant in error.

1. Practice: error. Where the judgment of a justice of the peace is taken on error to the district court and reversed, and the original case retained for trial in that court, such judgment of reversal is a final judgment, and may be reviewed by the supreme court without waiting for the final disposition of the original case in the supreme court.

2.--: waiver of error. The failure to except to such judgment of reversal, and to take steps to set it aside until after the original case has proceeded to final judgment, will be deemed a waiver of all errors committed in its rendition.

Error from the district court of Nemaha county. Motion made by defendant in error to dismiss proceedings.

*George P. Uhl,*for the motion.

*J. p[. Broady, contra.*

Lake, Ch. J.

This is a motion to quash the proceedings in error, and to strike the case from the docket for the reason, as is alleged, that a final judgment has not yet been rendered in the district court.

In making this motion, the defendant in error proceeds upon the theory that where the judgment of a justice of the peace is taken on error to the district court, and reversed, and the original cause is retained and set down for trial in that court, as the statute directs, the judgment of reversal cannot be reviewed by this court until after a final trial and judgment is had on the original cause of action. In this, however, he labors under a mistake. A proceeding in error, whereby a judgment of a justice of the peace is taken to the dis*241trict court aud reversed, is an independent action, tbe sole object of which is to vacate or modify the judgment against which it is directed. It is commenced by filing a petition, and causing a summons to issue thereon, and is in no sense a continuance of the action in which the erroneous judgment was rendered. And the judgment of reversal is a *final*judgment in that action, which can be reviewed only by a petition in error prosecuted in this court.

In such case, where the judgment of reversal is submitted to, no exception being taken, nor steps pursued to set it aside, and the original cause of action is proceeded with to final judgment, without objection, it is too late to complain, as we held in the case of *Lash v.*Christie, 1 Neb., 262. Such an acquiescence will be deemed a waiver of any error committed by the district court in its judgment of reversal.

¥e conclude, therefore, that this proceeding in error was properly brought, and the defendant’s motion must be denied.

Motion Denied.

The motion to dismiss being denied, the cause was set down for argument at the next term of the court.
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 quarterly report of Good Buddy's Coffee
Express, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB (the "Report"), I,
Scott Massey, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

(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.



/s/ Scott Massey
------------------------------------
Scott Massey
Chief Executive Officer  and
Chief Financial Officer

January 31, 2007



<PAGE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

807 

KA 13-01342 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH M. DILAURA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (MARY-JEAN BOWMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JOSEPH M. DILAURA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S.

Farkas, J.), rendered October 18, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the

second degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his

plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law

§§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]), defendant contends that the waiver of the

right to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the

sentence. Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly,

voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see

generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), we conclude that the valid

waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the

severity of the sentence because “no mention was made on the record

during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of

defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was also waiving

his right to appeal the harshness of his sentence” (People v Pimentel,

108 AD3d 861, 862, lv denied 21 NY3d 1076; see People v Peterson, 111

AD3d 1412, 1412). Nevertheless, we reject defendant’s challenge to

the severity of the sentence. 

Defendant’s further contention in his pro se supplemental brief

that he was denied effective assistance of counsel does not survive

his plea and valid waiver of the right to appeal his conviction

inasmuch as “defendant failed to demonstrate that ‘the plea bargaining

process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that

defendant entered the plea because of his attorney[’s] allegedly poor
-2- 807 

KA 13-01342 

performance’ ” (People v Wright, 66 AD3d 1334, 1334, lv denied 13 NY3d

912; see People v Hodge, 85 AD3d 1680, 1681, lv denied 18 NY3d 883;

People v Kearns, 50 AD3d 1514, 1515, lv denied 11 NY3d 790). Finally,

we reject defendant’s request that this direct appeal from the

judgment of conviction be decided in conjunction with a CPL article

440 motion that defendant has allegedly made in County Court. A

direct appeal cannot be consolidated with a motion pending in a trial

court. 

Entered: July 11, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67948-67949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25855]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Outdoor Power Equipment Institute

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 16, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Outdoor Power Equipment 
Institute

[[Page 67949]]

(``OPEI'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
name and principal place of business of the standards development 
organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Outdoor Power 
Equipment Institute, Alexandria, VA. The nature and scope of OPEI's 
standards development activities are: The development of voluntary 
standards for wheeled and handheld outdoor power equipment including, 
but not limited to: Walk-behind mowers; ride-on machines with mowers; 
snow throwers; commercial turf care equipment; powered shredder/
grinders and shredded/baggers; walk-behind powered rotary tillers; 
hand-held and backpack, gasoline-engine-powered blowers; grass 
trimmers; and brush cutters.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25855 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### § 990.40 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to provide a process by which trustees determine if they have jurisdiction to pursue restoration under OPA and, if so, whether it is appropriate to do so.