alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jacob Weinberg, Respondent, v New York City Employees’ Retirement System, Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*for reformation, based on mistake, of plaintiff’s choice of a retirement plan, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 23, 1976, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The trial court properly denied the motion for summary judgment. The record presents disputed factual issues which cannot be resolved on the papers submitted on this motion, and which require a trial for their determination. Cohalan, Acting P. J, Hawkins, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ, concur.
#### Nix, Halsell & Co. *et al.*v. H. W. Underhill *et al.*

(Filed Feb. 11, 1899.)

Chattel *Mortgage*— Insolvent. *Debtors*— Preferred *Creditors.*An insolvent debtor may make conveyances of the whole or any part of his property, by chattel mortgages, to one or more of his creditors, in good faith, for the security of *bona fide*indebtedness, in exclusion of other creditors. Such conveyances do not -constitute an asignment of the property in trust for tlie benefit of all creditors, to be administered by a receiver in a court of equity.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*Error from the District Court of Logan County; before Frank Dale, District Judge.*

*John H. Cotteral,*for plain-tiffs in error.

*,Green &*Strang, for defendants in,error.

Action by Nix, Halsell & Co. and 'others against H. W. Underhill and others to have certain chattel mortgages declared an equitable assignment for the benefit of creditors, and for the appointment of a receiver. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition of the plaintiffs, and dismissing the cause, plaintiffs bring error.

Affirmed.

Opinion of the court by

Tarsnev, J.:

This cause is- here upon a transcript of the record. The facts and circumstances shown by this Tec-ord present precisely the same question involved in *Smith v.*Baker, 5 Okla. 326, 49 Pac. 61, and *Smith-McCord Dry-Goods Co. v. John B. Farwell & Co.,*6 Okla. 318, 50 Pac. *124149, wherein it was held that, where an insolvent debtor-makes conveyances of the whole of his property, by chat-tie mortgage, to one or more of his creditors, in good faith, for the security of a *Iona, fide*indebtedness, although in exclusion of other creditors, the transaction lacks the essential elements- of a trust for the benefit of creditors, and is not brought within the statute relating to voluntary assignments. The statute regulating and permitting voluntary assignments by insolvent debtors for the benefit of creditors- was not intended to, and does n-o-t, affect -or qualify the rights of such debtors to make preferences among their creditors under section 4, ch. 5 Statutes 1893. Upon the authority of those cases, the judgment herein is affirmed.

All of the Justices concurring.
UNITE D STATE S O FAMERIC A FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON
. D. C I N TH E MATTE R O R GOJE TAIRLINES , LL C (V D GEA R PINS ) FA ADocke t No
. CP10CE000 3 DM S No
. FAA-2010-002 5 

## 'BEARIN G DOCKE T

NOTIC EO FAPPEA LERRAT A COME S no w th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , b y an dthroug hhi s Regional Counsel , for th e Central Region , an dhereb y correct s th e FA A Docke t No
. CP l 0CE000 9 a s i t

i s foundon th e Notic e o f

Appea l file do n May 31 , 2011 , s o tha t i t no w read s CP10CE0003
. Date dthi s 1 ' * day o f

June , 2011
. Respectfull y Submitted , - ^ A
. Lester Haizli p RegionaLCounse l By : ,/^ ' / Davi dKessle r Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 90 1 Locus t

Street , Roo m50 6 Kansa s City , M O 6410 6 ATTORNE Y FO RCOMPLAINAN T C"' Z -" — L O


### ' U 1.- 0 ! j j y.j j • ^." \ y- ' •~'Ci~- j ^^o^ : rn-^'.rr i zo=r':z : •j-.-^::!-(— i -^-r^^ j V ; J-;r--l- l C- OI n th e Matte r o f G o Je t Airlines , LLC
. FA A Docke t No
. CP10CE0003 ; DM S FAA-2010-002 5 CERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t I hav e thi s dat e sent

th e Agency' s Notic e o f

Appea l Errata , vi a method s listed , t o belo w name daddressees : Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Ave , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk AG C 43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W100 0 (Origina l an d1 cop y vi aregula r mai l an dFa x t o 202-493-5142 )
Davi dJ
. A
. Hayes , III , Esq
. Vic e Presiden t

& Genera l Counse l Tran s State s Airline s In c 1149 5 Natura l Bridg e Rd. , Suit e 30 3 Bridgeton , M O 6304 4 ( 1 cop y vi aregula r

mail ) Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwi n Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U S Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 ( 1 cop y vi aregula r

mail )
Date dthi s 1' * day o f

Jun e 201 1
)avi dKessle r Attorne y
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                        Financial Data Schedule Worksheet
        Commercial and Industrial Companies - Article 5 of Regulation S-X
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                    AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                         MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                                                   363,041
<SECURITIES>                                                           3,518,738
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          1,517,817
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             153,869
<INVENTORY>                                                              875,133
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                       6,426,272
<PP&E>                                                                   820,534
<DEPRECIATION>                                                           201,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                         7,095,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                    479,599
<BONDS>                                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                                   3,165
<OTHER-SE>                                                             6,593,455
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                           7,095,505
<SALES>                                                                8,684,456
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                       8,684,456
<CGS>                                                                  5,568,413
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                          5,568,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                         158,749
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          30,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                       116,217
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                          765,749
<INCOME-TAX>                                                             204,985
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                      560,764
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                             560,764
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                                .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                  0
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 2.17

                               AMENDMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment Agreement is entered into this 13th day of May 1999 between:

(1)      M-R Group plc ("M-R"); and

(2)      Lason, Inc. ("Lason").

WHEREAS:

(A)      M-R and Lason entered into a transaction agreement 25 March, 1999 (the
         "Transaction Agreement").

(B)      The parties entered into an amendment agreement to the Transaction
         Agreement on 30 April, 1999 (the "Amendment Agreement").

(C)      The parties have agreed to further amend the Transaction Agreement as
         set out below.

IT IS AGREED:

1.       Capitalised terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment
         Agreement shall have the meanings given to them in the Transaction
         Agreement.

2.       Each of the parties hereto agrees that the number of shares of Lason
         Common Stock to be issued to M-R Shareholders as consideration under
         the Scheme has been varied from that specified in the Press
         Announcement to the following:

         for every 100 M-R Shares           5.376 new Lason Common Stock

         and so in proportion for any other number of M-R Shares held.

3.       Except as expressly amended hereby, the Transaction Agreement, as
         amended by the Amendment Agreement, shall remain in full force and
         effect in accordance with its terms.

4.       This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with
         English law.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lason and M-R have caused this Amendment Agreement to be
duly executed as of the day and year first above written.

LASON                                        M-R GROUP PLC

By: /s/ William J. Rauwerdink                By: /s/ Colin Haylock     
    ------------------------------------        ----------------------------
Name: William J. Rauwerdink                  Name: Colin Haylock
Title:   Executive Vice President, CFO       Title:    Executive Chairman
         Secretary and Treasurer
### §290ii–1. Reporting requirement

#### (a) In general

Each facility to which the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986 1 [42 U.S.C. 10801 et seq.] applies shall notify the appropriate agency, as determined by the Secretary, of each death that occurs at each such facility while a patient is restrained or in seclusion, of each death occurring within 24 hours after the patient has been removed from restraints and seclusion, or where it is reasonable to assume that a patient's death is a result of such seclusion or restraint. A notification under this section shall include the name of the resident and shall be provided not later than 7 days after the date of the death of the individual involved.

#### (b) Facility

In this section, the term "facility" has the meaning given the term "facilities" in section 102(3) of the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986 1 (42 U.S.C. 10802(3)).

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §592, as added Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXII, §3207, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1196.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of 1986, referred to in text, was Pub. L. 99–319, May 23, 1986, 100 Stat. 478. Pub. L. 99–319 was renamed the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act by Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXII, §3206(a), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1193, and is classified generally to chapter 114 (§10801 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 10801 of this title and Tables.

1 See References in Text note below.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2608

To suspend temporarily the duty on Emamectin Benzoate Technical. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2005

Mr. TERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Emamectin Benzoate 

Technical.

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

3 SECTION 1. EMAMECTIN BENZOATE TECHNICAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.90.13 Emamectin Benzoate Technical – Avermectin B1,4′′-

deoxy-4′′-(methylamino)-

,(4′′R)-,benzoate (salt) (CAS 

No. 155569–91–8) (provided 

for in subheading 

2938.90.00) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2

•HR 2608 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### Frank P. Morabito, Appellant, v. Glens Falls Insurance Co., Respondent.

Motion granted to extent appeal may be prosecuted on an original typewritten record, and five typewritten copies of the record, one of which shall be the ribbon copy, and five typewritten copies of brief.
§ 50.50 Renunciation of nationality. ( a ) A person desiring to renounce U.S. nationality under section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall appear before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in the manner and form prescribed by the Department. The renunciant must include on the form he signs a statement that he absolutely and entirely renounces his U.S. nationality together with all rights and privileges and all duties of allegiance and fidelity thereunto pertaining.
( b ) The diplomatic or consular officer shall forward to the Department for approval the oath of renunciation together with a certificate of loss of nationality as provided by section 358 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If the officer's report is approved by the Department, copies of the certificate shall be forwarded to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice, and to the person to whom it relates or his representative.
[31 FR 13537, Oct. 20, 1966, as amended at 61 FR 29653, June 12, 1996]
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, Charley Changmin Yoon, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports
on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust
2019-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);



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



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



4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement
required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer
has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and



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



In giving the certifications above, I have
reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Citibank, N.A.



Date: March 13, 2020



| | By: | /s/ Charley Changmin Yoon                                    
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Name: Charley Changmin Yoon                                  
| |     | Title:  President and Secretary                              
| |     | (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### In the Matter of Howard Eisenstadt, Respondent, v Debbie Eisenstadt, Appellant.

[717 NYS2d 200]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5241 to vacate an income execution, the appeal is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Maraño, J.), dated October 1, 1999, as, upon granting the petition, in effect, canceled the support arrears owed by the petitioner.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the support arrears owed to the appellant are reinstated.

When the husband failed to pay support arrears in accordance with an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated June 17, 1999, the wife served an income execution on him and his employer *(see,*CPLR 5241). The husband then brought this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5241 to vacate the income execution based upon a “mistake of fact” (CPLR 5241 [a] [8]), claiming that he should be credited for paying the mortgage and carrying charges on the marital home during the pendente lite period in which the arrears accrued. The Supreme Court granted the petition and vacated the income execution. Additionally, the Supreme Court determined that no arrears were due to the wife, and, in effect, canceled arrears.

We -agree with the wife’s contention that the issue of the amount and propriety of the arrears allegedly owed by the husband is beyond the scope of this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5241 to vacate an income execution *(see, Matter of Caruso v Huguenin,*217 AD2d 622; *McGowan v McGowan,*191 AD2d 618; *Wikso v Wikso,*164 AD2d 975). The husband failed to sustain his burden of presenting evidence of mistake of fact as defined by CPLR 5241 (a) (8) *(see, Matter of Stover v Goegel,*213 AD2d 554; *Cohn v Cohn,*208 AD2d 885). Although in some cases, arrears may be offset by other pendente lite payments, such a determination must be made by a court, not by one of *379the parties. Furthermore, by summarily cancelling arrears which were determined by another Supreme Court Justice, the Supreme Court, in effect, improperly overruled a court of coordinate jurisdiction (see, *People v Evans,*94 NY2d 499; *Matter of Dondi v Jones,*40 NY2d 8).

We note that the wife consented to the vacatur of the income execution, apparently on the ground of improper service, and does not appeal from that portion of the court’s order. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ECOPY, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 08-04227 JSW

No. C 08-04942 JSW

No. C 08-02912 JSW

ORDER ADOPTING

RECOMMENDATION OF

SPECIAL MASTER RE ORDER

OF PATENTS

The Court has reviewed Special Master Meredith Martin Addy’s Recommendation

dated June 14, 2010 regarding the order of patents, claims and terms to be adjudicated and

adopts it in every respect.

Furthermore, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the Special Master shall appear at the

case management conference set for July 2, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. and shall be prepared to meet

with the parties to mediate the selection of the ten terms to be construed during the Markman

process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04942-JSW Document 120 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------


                            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 Pacific Biometrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P.
Jensen, Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 result of operations of the Company.


Date: May 12, 2006

                                       /s/ John P. Jensen
                                       -----------------------------
                                       John P. Jensen
                                       Controller
#### In the Matter of Debbony Octavia M., a Child Alleged to be Permanently Neglected. Lisa M., Appellant; Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Respondent, et al., Respondent.

[717 NYS2d 62]

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Alma Cordova, J.), entered May 7, 1997, which, upon a finding of permanent neglect, terminated respondent mother’s parental rights to the subject child and committed custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Family Court properly admitted into evidence those portions of the case file and progress notes considered by the court in making its determination, since the contents of the admitted documents were not offered for the truth of matter as to respondent-appellant’s domicile, but only to demonstrate that petitioner agency had diligently attempted to locate respondent *(see generally, Matter of Bergstein v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 318, 323-324; *Splawn v Lextaj Corp.,*197 AD2d 479, *161480), and, in light of the evidence of the agency’s attempts to locate respondent, the court properly concluded that the agency had been sufficiently diligent in encouraging the parent-child relationship to satisfy the statutory mandate, the success of its efforts having been frustrated not by their inadequacy but by respondent’s unresponsiveness *(see, Matter of Star Leslie W.,*63 NY2d 136, 144).

The typographical error in the petition, indicating the wrong date on which the subject child came into the care of the agency, a date significantly before her birth, did not constitute a jurisdictional defect. Respondent, moreover, was fully aware of the error and was informed of the correct date prior to the fact-finding hearing.

We have examined respondent-appellant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.