alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### White & Baxter, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Jade Square and Tower, Ltd., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 4, 1977, denying the motion of defendant Jade Square and Tower, Ltd. (Jade), for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and each of the causes of action, is unanimously modified, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, to grant the motion to the extent of dismissing and severing the second and third causes of action as against Jade and is otherwise affirmed. Plaintiff White & Baxter, Inc. (White), is a corporation wholly owned by one Firestone who was the owner of certain property. In 1974, title to the property was deeded to White and immediately reconveyed to Firestone. In 1976, White gave an option for sale to Bersen and the premises were to be conveyed through Firestone or White. Later, Bersen assigned the agreement to Jade. Attached to the option agreement was a contract of sale which was to become effective upon the exercise of the option. Jade exercised the option but submitted a rider altering some of the terms of the contract including time for making payment. These changes were not agreed to by plaintiff, and Jade’s default in making the next payment due was alleged by plaintiff to constitute a breach. Jade also demanded that all leasehold interests under Firestone’s control be assigned to Jade. The second mortgagees threatened foreclosure if this was not done, and Jade also threatened to default. When Firestone refused these demands, Jade defaulted, and the second mortgagees began foreclosure which was aborted when Firestone filed a petition in bankruptcy. The first cause of action is for breach of contract against Jade. The second cause includes Jade in a conspiracy to induce the breach of that contract. But, a promisor cannot be held liable for a conspiracy to induce the breach of its own contract. *(Bereswill v Yablon,*6 NY2d 301; *Turntables, Inc. v M. B. Plastics Corp.,*31 AD2d 792.) As to the third cause of action by White, for slander of title, White did not have title to the property and hence had no standing to set forth the third cause of action. In fact the affidavit of Murray Firestone in opposition to the motion for summary judgment sets forth that in 1974, for the purpose of negotiating a mortgage with Talcott and CIT "title was put into the name of White & Baxter and immediately deeded back to me after the loan was made.” Absent a showing that the subject property was subsequently deeded back to White, the plaintiff White was not a proper party. Concur—Silverman, J. P., Evans, Lane and Sandler, JJ.
H. R. 324

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fourth day of January, two thousand and five 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 321 Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs, Florida, as the ‘‘Arthur Stacey Mastrapa 

Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

321 Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs, Florida, shall be 

known and designated as the ‘‘Arthur Stacey Mastrapa Post Office 

Building’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Arthur 

Stacey Mastrapa Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Editorial Note on Part 982
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999, and at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024.

§ 982.638 Homeownership option: Denial or termination of assistance for family. ( a ) *General.* The PHA shall terminate homeownership assistance for the family, and shall deny voucher rental assistance for the family, in accordance with this section.
( b ) *Denial or termination of assistance under basic voucher program.* At any time, the PHA may deny or terminate homeownership assistance in accordance with § 982.552 (Grounds for denial or termination of assistance) or § 982.553 (Crime by family members).
( c ) *Failure to comply with family obligations.* The PHA may deny or terminate assistance for violation of participant obligations described in § 982.551 or § 982.633.
( d ) *Mortgage default.* The PHA must terminate voucher homeownership assistance for any member of family receiving homeownership assistance that is dispossessed from the home pursuant to a judgment or order of foreclosure on any mortgage (whether FHA-insured or non-FHA) securing debt incurred to purchase the home, or any refinancing of such debt. The PHA, in its discretion, may permit the family to move to a new unit with continued voucher rental assistance. However, the PHA must deny such permission, if: ( 1 ) The family defaulted on an FHA-insured mortgage; and
( 2 ) The family fails to demonstrate that: ( i ) The family has conveyed, or will convey, title to the home, as required by HUD, to HUD or HUD's designee; and
( ii ) The family has moved, or will move, from the home within the period established or approved by HUD.
[65 FR 55163, Sept. 12, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 33613, June 22, 2001]
§ 285.709 When conducting onsite fabrication inspections, what must the CVA or project engineer verify? ( a ) To comply with § 285.708(a)(3), the CVA or project engineer must make periodic onsite inspections while fabrication is in progress and must verify the following fabrication items, as appropriate: ( 1 ) Quality control by lessee (or grant holder) and builder;
( 2 ) Fabrication site facilities;
( 3 ) Material quality and identification methods;
( 4 ) Fabrication procedures specified in your FIRs and adherence to such procedures;
( 5 ) Welder and welding procedure qualification and identification;
( 6 ) Structural tolerances specified, and adherence to those tolerances;
( 7 ) Nondestructive examination requirements and evaluation results of the specified examinations;
( 8 ) Destructive testing requirements and results;
( 9 ) Repair procedures;
( 10 ) Installation of corrosion-protection systems and splash-zone protection;
( 11 ) Erection procedures to ensure that overstressing of structural members does not occur;
( 12 ) Alignment procedures;
( 13 ) Dimensional check of the overall structure, including any turrets, turret-and-hull interfaces, any mooring line and chain and riser tensioning line segments, and tendon or tethering systems; and
( 14 ) Status of quality-control records at various stages of fabrication.
( b ) For any floating facility, the CVA or project engineer must also verify that any requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard for structural integrity and stability (e.g., verification of center of gravity) have been met. The CVA or project engineer must also consider: ( 1 ) Foundations, foundation pilings and templates, and anchoring systems; and
( 2 ) Mooring, tendon, or tethering systems.
[89 FR 42719, May 15, 2024]
#### Nathan Mittleman and Samuel Mittleman, trading as Mittleman Brothers, appellees, v. Chicago Bottlers Clearing House Association, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,870.

Suit for balance claimed under agreement to cancel lease. Judgment against defendant entered upon default for want of an affidavit of merits. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. C. F. McKinley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 28, 1923.

Levinson *&*Hoffman, for appellant; Douglas C. Gregg and W. H. Gallagher, of counsel. -Edelson & -Paullin, for appellees; Hyland J. Paullin, of counsel.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### MAWHINNEY, Respondent, v. FAROWICH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 3, 1905.)

Action by George S. Mawhinney against Jacob Farowich.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

HOOKER, J., not voting.
November 6, 2002


Mr. John Lapham SunAmerica 1 SunAmerica Center
Los Angeles, CA  90067-6022

RE:  Ugly  Duckling   Corporation  Amended  and  Restated  Senior  Secured  Loan
     Agreement

Dear Sir:

In the quarter and month ending September 2002 and the month ending October 2002
we breached the Debt to Tangible Net Worth covenant of the Duck Auto Owner Trust
2002-B, resulting in an event of default under such trust. In turn, this default
caused an event of default under the above  referenced  agreement  under Article
VIII Events of Default Section 1(j).

The breach of the  covenant in the Duck Auto Owner Trust  2002-B was a result of
an  error in the  determination  of the  covenant  test in the  drafting  of the
related deal  documentation.  The insurer,  XL Capital,  has agreed the covenant
test was set in error and has agreed to waive the covenant until the test can be
amended in the related deal documentation.

With this letter DriveTime  Automotive  Group,  Inc.  requests the lenders under
this agreement waive the event of default under their agreement triggered by the
breaches  in the Duck  Auto  Owner  Trust  2002-B  Debt to  Tangible  Net  Worth
covenant.  If you need any  additional  information  to evaluate  this  request,
please contact me at 602-852-6635.  Your prompt attention to this matter will be
appreciated.

Sincerely,



Bob Fulton
Vice President - Treasurer
DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc.

cc:      Jon D. Ehlinger, Esq.
<PAGE>



The undersigned hereby waive the event of default requested:

KZH Soleil - 2 LLC

By:      _________________________
Name:    _________________________
Title:   _________________________



Galaxy CLO 1999-1, Ltd.
By:      SAI Investment Advisors, Inc.
         its Collateral Manager

By:      _________________________
Name:    _________________________
Title:   _________________________



Sun America Life Insurance Company

By:      _________________________
Name:    _________________________
Title:   _________________________
#### § 18.43 Explosion-proof splice boxes.

Internal connections shall be rigidly held and adequately insulated. Strain clamps shall be provided for all cables entering a splice box.
Exhibit
32.1


CLEARPOINT
BUSINESS RESOURCES, INC.




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO




18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,




AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO




SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of ClearPoint
Business Resources, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify with respect to
this Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the
“Report”) 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:
April 15, 2010




By:
                /s/ Michael D. TrainaMichael
      D. TrainaChief
      Executive Officer




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Robert B. Nolen, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Pinnacle Bancshares,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.     Date: August 14, 2006       BY: /s/ Robert B. Nolen, Jr.         Robert B. Nolen, Jr.    Chief Executive Officer and        Chief Financial Officer
Scott 

Gove or 

incere 

SCOTT WALKER 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

STATE OF WISCONSIN 

P.O. Box 7863 

MADISON, WI 53707 

February 11, 2011 

Susan Hedman 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA Region 5 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Mail Code: R-19.1 

Chicago, IL 60604-3507 

FEB .17 2011 

°AIR 

OFFICE OF THE 

SECRETARY 

Subject: Wisconsin Designation Recommendations for the 2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 

Dear Administrator Hedman: 

I am pleased to send this letter in compliance with section 107(d)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act. 

All 72 counties in Wisconsin should be designated as attainment for the 2010 1-hour NO2 

NAAQS. 

Available statewide air quality monitoring demonstrates that both rural and urban NO2 

concentrations are well below the level of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS and support an attainment 

classification. Table 1 summarizes NO2 concentrations observed in Wisconsin since 2006. 

We are aware that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established new 

monitoring requirements as part of the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. The WDNR will continue to 

work with U.S. EPA Region 5 to evaluate and finalize the monitoring network. However, we 

believe that air quality designations should be based on available monitoring data We request 

that the U.S. EPA wait until sufficient monitoring data is collected and implementation guidance 

is available before issuing attainment or nonattainment designations for future air quality 

standards. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit the State of Wisconsin's recommendation on this 

impo or air quality matter. If you have any questions or need additional information, please 

fee ee o contact WDNR Air Management Bureau Director John Melby at 608-264-8884. 

cc: C = thy Stepp, Secretary, WDNR 

WISCONSIN IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS 

WWW.WISGOV.STATE.WI.US• (608) 266-1212 • FAX: (608) 267-8983 
TABLE 1: WISCONSIN NO2MONITORING DATA 

Location Parameter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1 

. 

Ashland, WI 

th A, • 98 70-11e Conc. - - - 16 ppb 

Desi: Value - - 

Cassville, WI 98 3 %-ile Conc. - - - 29 ppb 

Design Value . - 

Manitowoc, WI 2 

98th%-ile Conc. 15 ppb 11 ppb 15 ppb 9 ppb 31 ppb 

Design Value - . 13 ppb 11 ppb 18 ppb 

Milwaukee, WI 98th%-ile Conc. 48 ppb 50 ppb 44 ppb 49 ppb 70 ppb 

Design Value - - _ 

47 ppb 47 ppb 54 ppb 

Potawatomi, WI -98th %-ile Conc

. 

- - - 5 ppb 

Design Value - - - -. , 

- 

1This data is from January - October 28. 

2This monitor only operates from June 1 — August 31. 

WISCONSIN IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS 

WWW.WISGOVSTATE.WWS • (608)266-1212 FAx: (608) 267-8983
**BF** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 07 00 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. BRENNAN ADRIAN JONES,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT OF EXTENSION** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including January 24 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief .

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court December 16 2020

12/16/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0700
----

----

| Delaware                                                                |   | 1-9618                     |   | 36-3359573                                    |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
| (State      or other jurisdiction ofincorporation      or organization) |   | (Commission      File No.) |   | (I.R.S.      EmployerIdentification      No.) |

| 4201      Winfield Road, P.O. Box 1488, Warrenville, Illinois |   | 60555           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------|
| (Address      of principal executive offices)                 |   | (Zip      Code) |

----

----

----

| ITEM 5.02 | DEPARTURE      OF DIRECTORS OR CERTAIN OFFICERS; ELECTION OF DIRECTORS; APPOINTMENT OF      CERTAIN OFFICERS; COMPENSATORY ARRANGEMENTS OF CERTAIN      OFFICERS |
|----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

|   | NAVISTAR      INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Registrant                              |

| Date:      June 5, 2009 | /s/      A.J.      Cederoth                 |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                    | A.J.      CederothPrincipal      FinancialOfficer                                                                           |
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 NeoMedia  Technologies,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  each
of the undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,  hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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  operation of the
Company.

Date: August 13, 2003                      By:/s/ Charles T. Jensen
      ---------------                         ---------------------
                                           Name: Charles T. Jensen
                                           Title: President, COO, Acting CEO,
                                           Director

      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or
other  document  authentications,   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.
### §324. Use of minimum power

In all circumstances, except in case of radio communications or signals relating to vessels in distress, all radio stations, including those owned and operated by the United States, shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, §324, 48 Stat. 1091.)
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), James P. Scullion, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:
November 9, 2006



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/S/ JAMES P.
SCULLION                                 
|James P. Scullion Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### PARR, Respondent, v. LODER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 10, 1905.)

Action by Benjamin Parr against Noah Loder, Jr. No opinion. Motion denied.
§ 285.822 What must I do when BSEE conducts an inspection? ( a ) When BSEE conducts an inspection, you must: ( 1 ) Provide access to all facilities on your lease (including your project easement) or grant and any vessels engaged in activities authorized under this part; and
( 2 ) Make the following available for BSEE to inspect: ( i ) The area covered under a lease, ROW grant, or RUE grant;
( ii ) All improvements, structures, and fixtures on these areas; and
( iii ) All records of design, construction, operation, maintenance, repairs, or investigations on or related to the area.
( b ) You must retain the records referenced in paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section until BOEM releases your financial assurance under 30 CFR585.534 and provide them to BSEE upon request within the time period specified by BSEE.
( c ) You must demonstrate to the inspector how you are in compliance with your safety management system.
[88 FR 6413, Jan. 31, 2023, as amended at 89 FR 42721, May 15, 2024]