alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Appling, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on December 15, 1975, unanimously affirmed; appeal from order of said court, entered on November 5, 1975, unanimously dismissed as not separately appealable but reviewed by this court with the appeal from the judgment of December 15, 1975, and thereupon unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Lane and Sandler, JJ.
#### In re BOARD OF EDUCATION. In re PITT ST.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 13, 1903.)

In the matter of Board of .Education, in Re Pitt Street. No.opinion. Motion granted.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Matthew M. Mannelly, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable, and that information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc.





/s/MATTHEW M. MANNELLYName:  Matthew M. MannellyTitle:Chief Executive OfficerDate:    May 13, 2011
### §971d. Effect on valid existing Alaskan rights

Nothing in sections 971a to 971e of this title shall affect adversely any valid existing rights.

(Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 848, §4, 70 Stat. 898.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 420c of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.
Exhibit
4.1


 


DEMAND
PROMISSORY NOTE


 


$____________.00Sarasota,
FL


_______________,
2022


 


For
value received, and intending to be legally bound, INVO Bioscience Inc. (the “Maker”), promises to pay the total sum
of __________________________________ thousand dollars ($____________.00) to _______________________________ (the “Holder”)
together with and financing fee of ten percent (10%). Should this demand promissory note (the “Note”) not be repaid
in full by __________________, interest shall accrue on the Note from the date hereof until paid, at the rate of ten percent (10%) per
annum (computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months). Principal and any interest due shall be paid in full on demand,
following ten (10) calendar day prior written notice starting on __________________. Payments shall be first applied to any accrued interest
and then to the financing fee, and shall be made at such place as the Holder hereof may direct.


 


This
Note may be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty, premium or other consideration.


 


All
presentment notice of protest or notice of nonpayment or dishonor are hereby waived, and the failure of the Holder to exercise any of
his rights hereunder in any instance shall not constitute a waiver thereof in that or any other instance.


 


Notwithstanding
anything stated to the contrary herein, this Note shall become immediately due and payable, without any demand or notice whatsoever,
upon the commencement of any bankruptcy, reorganization, receivership or insolvency proceeding by or against the Maker, or upon the Maker
making any assignment for the benefit of creditors.


 


In
the event that this Note, together with all accrued but unpaid interest hereon, is not paid within ten (10) days after the date upon
which payment becomes due pursuant to the terms of this Note, then the Maker agrees to pay all reasonable attorney's fees and expenses
incurred by the Holder in enforcing the obligations of the Maker under this Note.


 


This
Note may not be modified, amended, waived, extended, changed, discharged or terminated orally or by any act or failure to act on the
part of the Maker or the Holder, but only by an agreement in writing signed by both the Maker and the Holder.


 


This
note shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without regard to those provisions related to choice of
law.


  


[Signature
follows on next page]


 







    	 	 



    	 



    




 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has executed and delivered this instrument effective as of the date first written above.


 


By
Maker:


 


Steve
Shum


Chief
Executive Officer


INVO
Bioscience Inc.
#### Ethel Crosthwaite, Respondent, v. Alexander Crosthwaite, Appellant.

Motion by respondent to vacate order dated April 24, 1962, granting by default the appellant’s motion for a stay, and to restore said motion to the calendar. Motion to vacate granted on the stipulation of the parties; said order vacated; and motion for a stay directed to be added to the Motion Calendar of June 15,1962. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §§826 to 830. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–178, title VII, §7203(a)(2), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 477

Section 826, Pub. L. 94–210, title V, §506, Feb. 5, 1976, 90 Stat. 73; Pub. L. 94–555, title II, §§213, 214, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2624, 2625; Pub. L. 96–448, title IV, §405(c)(3)(A), (C), Oct. 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 1946, 1947, related to redeemable preference shares.

Section 827, Pub. L. 94–210, title V, §507, Feb. 5, 1976, 90 Stat. 74; Pub. L. 95–607, title III, §301(b), Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3066; Pub. L. 96–73, title IV, §401, Sept. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 557; Pub. L. 96–448, title IV, §§404, 405(a)(2), (c)(3)(B), Oct. 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 1945, 1946; Pub. L. 97–468, title IV, §401, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2550, related to fund anticipation notes.

Section 828, Pub. L. 94–210, title V, §508, Feb. 5, 1976, 90 Stat. 74, related to fund bonds.

Section 829, Pub. L. 94–210, title V, §509, Feb. 5, 1976, 90 Stat. 76; Pub. L. 94–555, title II, §216(d), Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2627; Pub. L. 95–607, title III, §301(c), Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3066; Pub. L. 96–73, title IV, §401, Sept. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 557; Pub. L. 96–448, title IV, §§404, 405(a)(2), (b)(1), Oct. 14, 1980, 94 Stat. 1945; Pub. L. 97–35, title XI, §1162(e), (f), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 684, 685; Pub. L. 97–468, title IV, §§401, 403(a), Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2550, 2551; Pub. L. 99–509, title IV, §4033(c)(4), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1909; Pub. L. 104–88, title III, §330(3), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 953, related to authorization of appropriations, purchases, transfer of funds, and restrictions.

Section 830, Pub. L. 94–210, title V, §510, Feb. 5, 1976, 90 Stat. 76; Pub. L. 104–88, title III, §330(4), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 953, related to exemption of redeemable preference shares from certain Federal and State securities provisions.
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 Solo Cup Company (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 27, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert M. Korzenski, as Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 M. Korzenski              
|Robert M. Korzenski                  
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|(Principal Executive Officer)        
|March 25, 2010                       

The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

A
signed original of this written statement required by § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post -**  **consumer fiber and process chlorine free. Customer Service Hotline: 1**  **- 800**  **- 438**  **- 2474**  8/20/2012 Mr. David K. Pay lor Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Director Pay lor : On March 9, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Virginia State I mplementation Plan (SI P) from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ ). The SIP revision addresses the infrastructure elements specified in section 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) which are necessary to implement , maintain, and enforce the 2008 lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Commonwealth of Virginia
. EPA has determined that the submittal is administra tively and technicall y complete , and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed R

ulemaking (NPR). If members of your staff have an y questions, they may direct them to Ms. Melissa L inden , Office of Air Program Planning, at (215) 814
- 20 96 , or linden.melissa@epa.gov
. She is the principal contact for this rulemaking
. Sincerel y, /s/ Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division

cc: Michael Dowd, Air Division Director Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
§ 891.700 Prepayment of loans. ( a ) *Prepayment prohibition.* The prepayment (whether in whole or in part) or the assignment or transfer of physical and financial assets of any Section 202 project is prohibited, unless the Assistant Secretary gives prior written approval.
( b ) *HUD-approved prepayment.* Approval for prepayment or transfer will not be granted unless HUD determines that the prepayment or transfer of the loan is a part of a transaction that will ensure the continued operation of the project until the original maturity date of the loan in a manner that will provide rental housing for the handicapped families on terms at least as advantageous to existing and future tenants as the terms required by the original Section 202 loan agreement and any other loan agreements entered into under other provisions of law.
#### Angelo Fata et al., Respondents, v Jerry Troyanos et al., Appellants.

In an action to rescind a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant vendors appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 18, 1976, which denied their motion for summary judgment and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered February 11, 1977, which, after a nonjury trial, *inter alia,*awarded plaintiffs $3,400 in damages plus the return of their $6,000 deposit. Appeal from the order dismissed as academic in the light of the subsequent judgment. Judgment modified, on the facts, by reducing the award of damages from $3,400 to $2,400. As so modified, judgment affirmed and action remanded to the Supreme Court for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment in accordance herewith. Plaintiffs-respondents are awarded one bill of costs to cover both appeals. Although we agree that the presence of a general merger clause, as here, does not bar parol evidence of fraudulent representations in an action to rescind a contract, and that the frustrated purchasers are entitled to a return of their deposit, as well as indemnification for their reasonable moving and storage expenses, we believe that reimbursement of $1,800 as the cost of sending their two daughters to camp for two months while the *829parents searched for new quarters is excessive. The award should be reduced by the amount indicated herein. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Gulotta and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Serge Atlan, certify that: 

  1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form10-KSB of FalconTarget, Inc.;  

  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit 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 quarterlyreport;  

  3) Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;  

  4) The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  

  a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based upon such evaluation; and  

  c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and  

  5) The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):  

  a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information and 

  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: September 22, 2006

By:   /s/   Serge Atlan 

    Serge Atlan

    Chairman
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 4, 2018

p1126 

# Order

Clerk December 4, 2018

157546 & (20)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157546

COA: 340092

Kent CC: 12

- 005712

- FC

DARRYL ANTHONY WARREN

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 22, 2018

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The

motion to remand is DENIED.
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 Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. ("Company") Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2007 ("Report"), the undersigned
certifies 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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: June 4, 2007

By: /s/ Albert F. Case, Jr.
---------------------------
Chief Executive 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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### FREELAND v. SHAW et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 10, 1905.)

Action by Alfred A. Freeland against A. B. and E. L. Shaw. No opinion. Motion granted, so far as to dismiss appeal, with $10 costs.
|  Subsidiary                                                                                 |   |  Jurisdiction |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|
| Synutra, Inc.                                                                                    |   | Illinois           |
| Shengyuan Nutritional Food Co., Ltd.                                                             |   | China              |
| Heilongjiang Mingshan Dairy Co., Ltd., previously known as Luobei Shengyuan Dairy Co., Ltd.      |   | China              |
| Zhangjiakou Shengyuan Dairy Co., Ltd.                                                       |   | China              |
| Inner Mongolia Shengyuan Food Co., Ltd.                                                          |   | China              |
| Meitek Technology (Qingdao) Co., Ltd., previously known as Mei TaiTechnology (Qingdao) Co., Ltd. |   | China              |
| Heilongjiang Baoquanling Shengyuan Dairy Co., Ltd.                                               |   | China              |
| Inner Mongolia Mengyuan Food Co., Ltd.                                                           |   | China              |
| Heilongjiang Baoquanling Shengyuan Dairy Cow Breeding Co., Ltd.                                  |   | China              |
| Beijing Shengyuan Huiliduo Food Technology Co., Ltd.                                             |   | China              |
| Harbin Shengyuan Dairy Co., Ltd.                                                                 |   | China              |
| Unisono B.V.                                                                                     |   | Netherlands        |
| Synutra International Company Limited                                                            |   | BVI                |
| Synutra International (HK) Company Limited                                                       |   | Hong Kong          |
| Beijing Shengyuan Meitek Technology Development Co., Ltd.                                        |   | China              |
| Global Food Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.                                                         |   | China              |

|  VIE/Subsidiary                                         |   |  Jurisdiction |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|
| Beijing Shengyuan Huimin Technology Service Co., Ltd.        |   | China              |
| Nanjing Shengyuan Huiren Clinical Examination Co., Ltd.      |   | China              |
| Taiyuan Shengyuan Huiren Clinical Examination Co., Ltd.      |   | China              |
| Shijiazhuang Shengyuan Huiren Clinical Examination Co., Ltd. |   | China              |
| Heilongjiang Shengyuan Huiren Clinical Examination Co., Ltd. |   | China              |

----
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 13, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00799

- CV

Robert Lee Martin, Appellant

v.

Bob Perkins, Ronald Earle, Amalia Rodriguez

- Mendoza, Gary Cobb, Diana Medina, and Blake Williams, Appellee s

A P PEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA KER, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on November 15, 2018

. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the tri al court’ s order

. Because appellant is indigent

and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs is made.
§ 582.320 Termination of assistance to participants. ( a ) *Termination of assistance.* The recipient may terminate assistance to a participant who violates program requirements or conditions of occupancy. Recipients must exercise judgment and examine all extenuating circumstances in determining when violations are serious enough to warrant termination, so that a participant's assistance is terminated only in the most severe cases. Recipients are not prohibited from resuming assistance to a participant whose assistance has been terminated.
( b ) *Due process.* In terminating assistance to a participant, the recipient must provide a formal process that recognizes the rights of individuals receiving assistance to due process of law. This process, at a minimum, must consist of: ( 1 ) Written notice to the participant containing a clear statement of the reasons for termination;
( 2 ) A review of the decision, in which the participant is given the opportunity to present written or oral objections before a person other than the person (or a subordinate of that person) who made or approved the termination decision; and
( 3 ) Prompt written notice of the final decision to the participant.
J.K.J. AND J.A.J.,

Appellants,

v.

L.L.L.S.,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3582

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County.

Kelvin C. Wells, Judge.

Brian Norback of Legal Services of North Florida, Inc., Fort Walton Beach, for 

Appellants.

Daniel W. Uhlfelder of Daniel W. Uhlfelder, P.A., Santa Rosa Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., JAY and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.