alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### S.L.S.M.C., Inc., Appellant, v Bruce S. Brickman & Associates, Inc., et al., Respondents. (And a Counterclaim Action.)

[716 NYS2d 662]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered October 26, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiffs cross motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs principal’s subjective interpretation of the parties’ preliminary discussions fails to raise an issue of fact as to the formation of an oral joint venture. Nor is such an issue raised by plaintiffs April 30, 1998 letter to defendants, which, if anything, shows that the parties did not intend to be bound to each other without a further, lawyer-prepared writing (see, *Chatterjee Fund Mgt. v Dimensional Media Assocs.,*260 AD2d 159). Plaintiffs claim that a further writing was no longer contemplated once defendants countersigned the letter is belied by the circumstance that plaintiffs attorney, who attended the meeting where defendants signed the letter, sent a letter to defendants the next day demanding that the parties’ arrange*185ments be “memorialize [d] ” in writing. Also demonstrating the parties’ intent not to be bound by their preliminary negotiations or any oral understandings were plaintiffs repeated demands for a limited liability corporation operating agreement, and its statement that it would not contribute to the alleged venture until that agreement was fully negotiated and executed *(see, Silverite Constr. Co. v Montefiore Med. Ctr.,*239 AD2d 336). Nor is there any merit to plaintiffs causes of action in tort and equity, which are improperly based on the alleged oral contract *(see, Chatterjee Fund Mgt. v Dimensional Media Assocs., supra; Steinberg v DiGeronimo,*255 AD2d 204), or on allegations of prior dealings, and a nonexistent proprietary interest in certain information, that do not show that defendants owed plaintiff fiduciary duties with respect to the instant transaction that these sophisticated parties were negotiating at arm’s length. We have considered and rejected plaintiffs other arguments. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.
#### Homer English, trustee in bankruptcy, plaintiff in error, v. T. F. Grady, defendant in error.

Assumpsit to recover the price of corn sold to defendant. Judgment for defendant. Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean county; the Hon. Edward Barry, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1922.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed October 25, 1922.

Livingston & Whitmore, for plaintiff in error. Herrick *&*Herrick and Costigan & Wollrab, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §3212. Maintenance of standards

All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on projects assisted by the Secretary under this chapter shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40. The Secretary shall not extend any financial assistance under this chapter for such a project without first obtaining adequate assurance that these labor standards will be maintained upon the construction work. The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this provision, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267), and section 3145 of title 40.

(Pub. L. 89–136, title VI, §602, formerly title VII, §712, Aug. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 575; Pub. L. 93–567, title III, §302, Dec. 31, 1974, 88 Stat. 1855; renumbered title VI, §602, and amended Pub. L. 105–393, title I, §102(b)(1), (2), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3616; Pub. L. 108–373, title V, §504, Oct. 27, 2004, 118 Stat. 1769.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950, referred to in text, is set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 3222 of this title prior to renumbering by Pub. L. 105–393.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3212, Pub. L. 89–136, title VII, §702, Aug. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 572, related to prevention of unfair competition, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–393, §102(b)(3).

A prior section 602 of Pub. L. 89–136 was classified to section 3202 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–393, §102(a).

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–373 substituted "in accordance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40" for "in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a–276a–5)" in first sentence and "section 3145 of title 40" for "section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276c)" in third sentence.

1998—Pub. L. 105–393, §102(b)(2)(A), substituted section catchline for former section catchline.

Pub. L. 105–393, §102(b)(2)(B), which directed amendment of text by substituting "this chapter" for "sections 3131, 3141, 3142, 3171, 3243, and 3246b of this title" in second sentence, was executed by making the substitution for phrase which began with "section 3131" rather than "sections 3131", to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

1974—Pub. L. 93–567 inserted references to sections 3243 and 3236b of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1998 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 105–393 effective Feb. 11, 1999, see section 105 of Pub. L. 105–393, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3121 of this title.
Amendment Agreement, dated November 5, 2010



  
 Exhibit 10.2

 Amendment Agreement 

This agreement (the “Agreement”) by and between HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC (“HNS”) and HUGHES
TELEMATICS, INC. (the “Company”) and is executed this 5th day of November, 2010 in connection with the amendment and restatement of the Senior Unsecured Promissory Note, dated December 18, 2009, issued by the Company to HNS (the
“Amended and Restated Note”). 
 1. In consideration of HNS executing the Amended and Restated Note,
the Company agrees to issue to HNS, on or before November 30, 2010, 50,000 shares of common stock of the Company (the “Shares”). HNS represents that it is: (a) acquiring the Shares for its own account as an investment and without
an intent to distribute the Shares (this representation and warranty not limiting HNS’s right to transfer the Shares in compliance with applicable federal and state securities laws); (b) the Shares are “restricted securities” and
have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) or any state securities laws, and may not be resold or transferred by HNS without registration under the Securities Act or any applicable state securities
laws or the availability of an exemption from such requirements; (c) HNS is at the date hereof an “accredited investor” as defined in Rule 501(a) under the Securities Act; and (d) HNS is not acquiring the Shares as a result of
any advertisement, article, notice or other communication regarding the Shares published in any newspaper, magazine or similar media or broadcast over television or radio or presented at any seminar or any other general solicitation or general
advertisement. 
 2. The benefits of this Agreement shall inure to the respective successors and assigns of the
parties hereto and of the indemnified parties hereunder and their successors, assigns and representatives, and the obligations and liabilities assumed in this Agreement by the parties hereto shall be binding upon their respective successors and
assigns. 
 3. This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by each party. 

4. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York, without reference to New York conflicts of law
principles. 
 5. This Agreement represents the entire understanding between the parties, and all prior
discussions and negotiations with respect to the Services are contained herein. 
 [Remainder of page left blank] 







  
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their duly authorized officers to execute and deliver this Agreement as of the date first above written. 

 

			
	 HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ DEAN MANSON

	 Title:
	 	 SVP, General Counsel and Secretary

	 Dated:
	 	 November 5, 2010

	
	 HUGHES TELEMATICS, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ CRAIG KAUFMANN

	 Title:
	 	 SVP Finance and Treasurer

	 Dated:
	 	 November 5, 2010
### §4638. Transfers of surplus property

The Administrator of General Services is authorized to transfer to a State agency for the purpose of providing replacement housing required by this subchapter, any real property surplus to the needs of the United States within the meaning of chapters 1 to 11 of title 40 and division C (except sections 3302, 3307(e), 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41. Such transfer shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Administrator determines necessary to protect the interests of the United States and may be made without monetary consideration, except that such State agency shall pay to the United States all net amounts received by such agency from any sale, lease, or other disposition of such property for such housing.

(Pub. L. 91–646, title II, §218, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1902; Pub. L. 100–17, title IV, §414, Apr. 2, 1987, 101 Stat. 255.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

In text, "chapters 1 to 11 of title 40 and division C (except sections 3302, 3307(e), 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41" substituted for "the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended" on authority of Pub. L. 107–217, §5(c), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1303, which Act enacted Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, and Pub. L. 111–350, §6(c), Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3854, which Act enacted Title 41, Public Contracts.

#### Amendments

1987—Pub. L. 100–17 inserted "net" after "all".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1987 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–17 effective on effective date provided in regulations promulgated under section 4633 of this title (as amended by section 412 of Pub. L. 100–17), but not later than 2 years after Apr. 2, 1987, see section 418 of Pub. L. 100–17, set out as a note under section 4601 of this title.
Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

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

LAWRENCE GEORGE HASH,

Plaintiff,

    v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants._______________________________                                

)))))))))) 

No. C 08-3729 MMC (PR)  

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’FIRST REQUEST FOR EXTENSIONOF TIME

(Docket Nos. 35, 37, 39)

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the request of defendants Bowman, Gant, Gomez,

Kates, Kessler, Krossa, Lee, Lewis, Pistone, Torres, Walker, Washington and Winn for an

extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion is

hereby GRANTED.  Additionally, an extension of time is hereby GRANTED as to

defendants Burke and Delfs, who have joined in the request.   

Defendants shall file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion no

later than July 15, 2010.  Within thirty days of the date such motion is filed, plaintiff shall

file with the Court and serve on defendants’ counsel opposition thereto.  Defendants shall

file a reply to plaintiff’s opposition within fifteen days of the date such opposition is filed.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 35, 37 and 39.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 23, 2010

_____________________________MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03729-MMC   Document 40   Filed 04/23/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-11T04:01:27-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

§ 40.63 Misrepresentation; falsely claiming citizenship. ( a ) *Fraud and misrepresentation and INA 212(a)(6)(C) applicability to certain refugees.* An alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured a visa, other documentation, or entry into the United States or other benefit provided under the INA by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact at any time shall be ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C); *Provided,* That the provisions of this paragraph are not applicable if the fraud or misrepresentation was committed by an alien at the time the alien sought entry into a country other than the United States or obtained travel documents as a bona fide refugee and the refugee was in fear of being repatriated to a former homeland if the facts were disclosed in connection with an application for a visa to enter the United States: *Provided further,* That the fraud or misrepresentation was not committed by such refugee for the purpose of evading the quota or numerical restrictions of the U.S. immigration laws, or investigation of the alien's record at the place of former residence or elsewhere in connection with an application for a visa.
( b ) *Misrepresentation in application under Displaced Persons Act or Refugee Relief Act.* Subject to the conditions stated in INA 212(a)(6)(c)(i), an alien who is found by the consular officer to have made a willful misrepresentation within the meaning of section 10 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended, for the purpose of gaining admission into the United States as an eligible displaced person, or to have made a material misrepresentation within the meaning of section 11(e) of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, as amended, for the purpose of gaining admission into the United States as an alien eligible thereunder, shall be considered ineligible under the provisions of INA 212(a)(6)(C).
( c ) *Waiver of ineligibility—INA 212(i).* If an immigrant applicant is ineligible under INA 212(a)(6)(C) but is qualified to seek the benefits of INA 212(i), the consular officer shall inform the alien of the procedure for applying to DHS for relief under that provision of law. A visa may not be issued to the alien until the consular officer has received notification from DHS of the approval of the alien's application under INA 212(i).
[56 FR 30422, July 2, 1991, as amended at 61 FR 1835, Jan. 24, 1996]
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4424 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4424

   To suspend temporarily the duty on cyan 1 RO inkjet printing ink.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 19, 2012

  Mr. Carney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on cyan 1 RO inkjet printing ink.

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

SECTION 1. CYAN 1 RO INKJET PRINTING INK.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.40.42 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Cyan 1 RO inkjet printing 
ink) is amended by--
            (1) striking ``0.3%'' and inserting ``Free''; and
            (2) striking ``12/31/2012'' and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lloyd Willis, Appellant.

In a *comm nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County, dated July 5, 1961, which, denied, after a hearing, his application to vacate a judgment of said court rendered December 28, 1937 on Ms plea of guilty, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and grand larceny in the second degree, and imposing sentence. Order reversed on the law, and proceeding remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for a new hearing and determination. It appears that the stenographic minutes of the hearing in the court below have been lost and that it is impossible to obtain a transcript. Hence, no sufficient basis exists for determining whether, under all the circumstances, the denial of defendant’s application was proper. Accordingly, another hearing must be accorded to the defendant, and a determination *de novo*should be made on the basis of the evidence adduced upon such hearing. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
§ 1000.158 How will a NAHASDA grant recipient know that the housing assisted under the IHBG program meets the requirements of § 1000.156? ( a ) A recipient must use one of the methods specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section to determine if an assisted housing project meets the moderate design requirements of § 1000.156. For purposes of this requirement, a project is one or more housing units, of comparable size, cost, amenities and design, developed with assistance provided by the Act.
( b ) The recipient may adopt written standards for its affordable housing programs that reflect the requirement specified in § 1000.156. The standards must describe the type of housing, explain the basis for the standards, and use similar housing in the Indian tribe's general geographic area. For each affordable housing project, the recipient must maintain documentation substantiating compliance with the adopted housing standards. The standards and documentation substantiating compliance for each activity must be available for review by the general public and, upon request, by HUD. Prior to awarding a contract for the construction of housing or beginning construction using its own workforce, the recipient must complete a comparison of the cost of developing or acquiring/rehabilitating the affordable housing with the limits provided by the TDC discussed in paragraph (c) of this section and may not, without prior HUD approval, exceed by more than 10 percent the TDC maximum cost for the project. In developing standards under this paragraph, the recipient must establish, maintain, and follow policies that determine a local definition of moderate design which considers: ( 1 ) Gross area;
( 2 ) Total cost to provide the housing;
( 3 ) Environmental concerns and mitigations;
( 4 ) Climate;
( 5 ) Comparable housing in geographical area;
( 6 ) Local codes, ordinances and standards;
( 7 ) Cultural relevance in design;
( 8 ) Design and construction features that are reasonable, and necessary to provide decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing; and
( 9 ) Design and construction features that are accessible to persons with a variety of disabilities.
( c ) If the recipient has not adopted housing standards specified in paragraph (b) of this section, Total Development Cost (TDC) limits published periodically by HUD establish the maximum amount of funds (from all sources) that the recipient may use to develop or acquire/rehabilitate affordable housing. The recipient must complete a comparison of the cost of developing or acquiring/rehabilitating the affordable housing with the limits provided by the TDC and may not, without prior HUD approval, exceed the TDC maximum cost for the project.
[66 FR 49790, Sept. 28, 2001]
#### The People of the State of New York Respondent, v James Barker, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed January 5, 1977, upon his conviction of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a term of imprisonment with a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 15 years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to a term of imprisonment with a minimum of one year and a maximum of six years. As so modified, sentence affirmed. The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2708 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Benzo[1,2-b:4,5-b′]difuran-2,6-dione, 3- 

phenyl-7-(4-propoxyphenyl)-. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Benzo[1,2-b:4,5- 

b′]difuran-2,6-dione, 3-phenyl-7-(4-propoxyphenyl)-. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BENZO[1,2-B:4,5-B′]DIFURAN-2,6-DIONE, 3- 

4 PHENYL-7-(4-PROPOXYPHENYL)-. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.12.13 Benzo[1,2-b:4,5-b′]difuran2,6-dione, 3-phenyl-7-(4- 

propoxyphenyl)-. (CAS No. 

79694–17–0) (provided for 

in subheading 3204.11.35) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2708 IH 

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

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### § 92.26 Venue on affidavit.

The venue must always be given and should precede the body of the affidavit. (See § 92.14 regarding venue on notarial certificates generally.)
### §5732. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5732 was editorially reclassified as section 11277 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5732, Pub. L. 93–415, title III, §322, Sept. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1132, set forth restrictions on disclosure and transfer of records, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 95–115, §7(b), Oct. 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 1058, eff. Oct. 1, 1977.
##### 



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 Brantley Capital Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert
P. Pinkas, Chief Executive Officer of Brantley Capital Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (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/ ROBERT P. PINKASRobert P. PinkasChairman and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 15, 2004