alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TABLE OF CONTENTS     ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS  3      ARTICLE 2. TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES  3      ARTICLE 3. TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES FEE  3      ARTICLE 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES  4      ARTICLE 5. CONFIDENTIALITY  4      ARTICLE 6. GOVERNING LAW AND EVENTS OF DEFAULT  4      ARTICLE 7. DISPUTE RESOLUTION  4      ARTICLE 8. EFFECTIVENESS  5      ARTICLE 9. NO SUBSEQUENT OBLIGATION  5      ARTICLE 10. TRANSFER LIMITATION  5      ARTICLE 11. AMENDMENT  5      ARTICLE 12. COUNTERPARTS  5      ARTICLE 13. MISCELLANEOUS  5      EXHIBIT 1 CONTENT OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES  6      EXHIBIT 2 TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICE FEE  7 
 
2

 
TECHNICAL SUPPORT AGREEMENTThis Technical Support Agreement (“this Agreement”) is entered into in Beijing, the People’sRepublic of China (the “PRC”) on November 25, 2009 between:Party A: Guangzhou Boxin Investment Advisory Co., Ltd.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Adelaida M. Laga, PT, as Assignee of Noel, Jocelyn, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>American Commerce Insurance Company, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Bruno, Gerbino &amp; Soriano, LLP (Mitchell L. Kaufman, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Richard G. Latin, J.), entered July 30, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the branches of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on the second through fourth causes of action and granted the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied the branches of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on the second through fourth causes of action, and granted the branches of defendant's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing those causes of action on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs).</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's only argument as to defendant's cross motion, the affirmation submitted by defendant was sufficient to establish plaintiff's failure to appear for the EUOs (<i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720 [2006]).</p><p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: September 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Melvin D. James, Respondent, v R & G Hacking Corp. et al., Defendants, and Taxi Wheels to Lease, Inc., Appellant.

[835 NYS2d 61]

*386Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann BriganttiHughes, J.), entered February 8, 2006, which denied defendant Taxi Wheels to Lease, Inc.’s (TWL) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it on the ground that it did not possess an ownership interest in the subject vehicle, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted and the complaint dismissed as against Taxi Wheels to Lease, Inc. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Initially, we find that the motion court erred when it denied Taxi Wheels to Lease, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that it was actually an untimely motion to reargue a prior order granting plaintiff leave, pursuant to CPLR 3025, to add TWL as a defendant. It is settled that the standard applied on a motion to amend a pleading is much less exacting than the standard applied on a motion for summary judgment *(see Thompson v Cooper,*24 AD3d 203, 206 [2005]; *Baskin & Sears v Lyons,*188 AD2d 307, 308 [1992]). Here, the earlier determination granting plaintiff leave was not on the merits or, as plaintiff characterizes it, “law of the case,” and does not preclude TWL from establishing, on a motion for summary judgment, that it held no ownership interest in the taxi as a matter of law.

We now address TWL’s motion for summary judgment, as an appellate court may search the record and grant summary judgment to eligible parties *(Eighty Eight Bleecker Co., LLC v 88 Bleecker St. Owners, Inc.,*34 AD3d 244, 246 [2006]; *Hughes v Solovieff Realty Co., L.L.C.,*19 AD3d 142, 143 [2005]).

In *Piaseczny v Bartolo*(271 AD2d 267, 267-268 [2000]), this Court held that absent evidence indicating that “the taxicab agent was in any manner involved with the operation of the cab, or was the owner of either the cab (see,Vehicle and Traffic Law § 128) or the medallion that was attached to the cab (see, Administrative Code of City of NY § 19-530 [1]),” then summary judgment in the agent’s favor is warranted. Here, as in *Piaseczny,*the evidence demonstrates that TWL was not the registrant or title owner of the taxicab, did not own the medallion attached thereon, did not employ the driver operating the cab at the time of the incident, and did not control the day-today operation of the vehicle. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of TWL, dismissing the complaint as against that entity, should be granted. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION

(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The
undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the foregoing Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed by May 15, 2005 for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and (ii) the information contained in that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



|                   |  |                                              
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2005 |  | /s/ Ronald Leon Moore                        
|                   |  | Ronald Leon Moore                            
|                   |  | Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
|                   | 
|Date: May 11, 2005 |  | /s/ Stephanie Kent                           
|                   |  | Stephanie Kent                               
|                   |  | Senior Vice President, Controller            
|                   |  | & Principal Financial Officer                



16
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-30,053-07 IN RE ANTONIO DUDLEY, Relator
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF M ANDAM US CAUSE NO. 534058-G

IN THE 208T H DISTRICT COURT F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this Court’s orig inal jurisdiction. He contends that he filed an application for a writ of habea s corpus in Har ris County

and his applica tion has not been prope rly forwa rded to this Court. Respondent, the District Clerk of Har ris County , shall forwa

rd Relator’s habea s application to this Court, respond that Relator has not filed a habea s application in Ha rris County , or forward
a copy of an order desig nating issues toge ther with corr espondenc e documenting the date the State
rec eived Relator’s habea s application. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(c) and (d); T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 5). This motion for leave to file will be held. Respondent shall comply with this order within thirty

day s from the da

te of this order
.2

Filed: Dec ember

11, 2019 Do not publish
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIn-flight flow visualization results from the X-29A aircraft at high angles of attackFlow visualization techniques were used on the X-29A aircraft at high angles of attack to study the vortical flow off the forebody and the surface flow on the wing and tail. The forebody vortex system was studied because asymmetries in the vortex system were suspected of inducing uncommanded yawing moments at zero sideslip. Smoke enabled visualization of the vortex system and correlation of its orientation with flight yawing moment data. Good agreement was found between vortex system asymmetries and the occurrence of yawing moments. Surface flow on the forward-swept wing of the X-29A was studied using tufts and flow cones. As angle of attack increased, separated flow initiated at the root and spread outboard encompassing the full wing by 30 deg angle of attack. In general, the progression of the separated flow correlated well with subscale model lift data. Surface flow on the vertical tail was also studied using tufts and flow cones. As angle of attack increased, separated flow initiated at the root and spread upward. The area of separated flow on the vertical tail at angles of attack greater than 20 deg correlated well with the marked decrease in aircraft directional stability.Document ID19930004134Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsDelfrate, John H.*(NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Facility Edwards, CA, United States)*Saltzman, John A.*(PRC Kentron, Inc. Edwards, CA., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1992Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberAIAA PAPER 92-4102NAS 1.15:4430NASA-TM-4430H-1825Meeting InformationMeeting: Biennial Flight Test ConferenceLocation: Hilton Head, SCCountry: United StatesStart Date: August 24, 1992End Date: August 26, 1992Accession Number93N13322Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 533-02-38Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930004134.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-20768

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE ENRIQUE QUINTERO-CORTEZ,

also known as Roberto Roena,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No.H-97-CR-282-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Jorge Enrique Quintero-Cortez

has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Quintero has not responded to this motion. Our

independent review of the brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
**Exhibit 12.1**

**HOLMES FUNDING LIMITED**

**ABBEY NATIONAL HOUSE**

**2 TRITON SQUARE, REGENTS PLACE**

**LONDON NW1 3AN**

 

I, Ruth Samson, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on Form 6-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of HOLMES FINANCING (NO. 9) PLC;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

 

4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in the report and required to be delivered to Holmes Funding Limited in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement; and

 

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer’s compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that is included in these reports.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Abbey National plc.

 

Date: June 28, 2007

 

 

  /s/ RUTH SAMSON                                                 

 

 

 

|  |   |   |
|--|--------|--------|

 

 

----
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350)



With reference to the Annual Report of Cambridge
Display Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Michael Black, Vice-President Finance of the Company,
certify, for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



|                                                   
|---------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL BLACK                               
|Michael Black Vice-President Finance March 30, 2005
### SUBCHAPTER II—ADMINISTRATION AND PERSONNEL
#### § 56.14207 Parking procedures for unattended equipment.

Mobile equipment shall not be left unattended unless the controls are placed in the park position and the parking brake, if provided, is set. When parked on a grade, the wheels or tracks of mobile equipment shall be either chocked or turned into a bank.
NO. 07-02-0115-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	APRIL 2, 2002

	______________________________

	IN THE INTEREST OF ZACKERY HUSEMAN AND

	MADELINE HUSEMAN, MINOR CHILDREN

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

	NO. A29348-9708; HONORABLE JACK R. MILLER, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Appellant Timothy Huseman gave notice of appeal on March 4, 2002, from an order of the trial court entered on February 15, 2002, dismissing his petition to modify in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship.  We have now received a certified copy of a more recent trial court order dated March 22, 2002, in which it granted appellant’s motion to reconsider the February 15 order of dismissal, withdrew that order, and indicated its intent to proceed in the matter after the respondent has been served.  The trial court also “abated” the appeal and declared it moot.

	The filing of a notice of appeal invokes the appellate court’s jurisdiction over all parties to the judgment or order appealed from.  Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(b).  However, the trial court retains plenary power to grant a new trial or to vacate, modify, correct, or reform the judgment until 30 days after all such motions are overruled.  Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(e) and (g).  The trial court has now reconsidered the order appealed from and vacated it, and we thus agree that the pending appeal has been rendered moot.  Further, there is no appealable order before this court, and we must therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.  Since appellant obtained the relief he requested by the trial court’s action, the need for ten days notice to the parties prior to dismissal pursuant to Rule 42.3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure is obviated, and we suspend that requirement for purposes of this appeal only pursuant to the authority of Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

	Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.   

							John T. Boyd

							 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
#### COON, Appellant, v. TOWN OF ALFRED, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by Mary E. Coon against the town of Alfred.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with, costs.

STOVER, J., not voting.
### §5566. Records and audits

(a) Record Requirements.—Each recipient of financial assistance under this chapter shall keep records required by the Secretary of Transportation. The records shall disclose—

(1) the amount, and disposition by the recipient, of the proceeds of the assistance;

(2) the total cost of the project for which the assistance was given or used;

(3) the amount of that part of the cost of the project supplied by other sources; and

(4) any other records that will make an effective audit easier.

(b) Audits and Inspections.—For 3 years after a project is completed, the Secretary and the Comptroller General may audit and inspect records of a recipient that the Secretary or Comptroller General decides may be related or pertinent to the financial assistance.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(d), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 853.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 5566(a) | 49 App.:1653(i)(8) (1st sentence). | Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931, §4(i)(8); added Oct. 28, 1974, Pub. L. 93–496, §§6, 15, 88 Stat. 1530, 1533; Feb. 5, 1976, Pub. L. 94–210, §707(3), 90 Stat. 125; May 30, 1980, Pub. L. 96–254, §206(a), 94 Stat. 412. |
| 5566(b) | 49 App.:1653(i)(8) (last sentence). | |

Section

In this section, the word "undertaking" is omitted as being included in "project".

In subsection (a), before clause (1), the word "fully" is omitted as surplus.

In subsection (b), the words "the expiration of" and "of the United States" are omitted as surplus. The words "or any of their duly authorized representatives" are omitted as unnecessary because of 49:322(b) and 31:711(2). The words "may audit and inspect" are substituted for "shall have access for the purpose of audit and examination" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code. The word "recipient" is substituted for "such receipts" to correct an error in the underlying source provisions.
PROMISSORY NOTE

Olympia,  Washington
$750,000.00                                          January 15,1997

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, WESTAR FINANCIAL SERVICES
INCORPORATED, a Washington corporation, with an address of 505 E. Union 
Avenue, Suite 300-C, P.O. Box 919, Olympia, Washington 98507-0919 ("Westar"),
promises to pay to the order of MUD BAY HOLDINGS, Ltd.  (the "Lender"), at
its principal place of business at Olympia,  Washington,  the principal sum 
of Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($750,000.00), together
with interest on the unpaid principal balance hereof from the date of 
disbursement by the Lender at the rates and in the manner hereinafter set
forth. The payment of principal and interest in respect of this note is
expressly subordinated to the interests of Bank One, Columbus N. A. ("Bank
One") regarding all debt owed to Bank One by Westar or any its subsidiaries.
In the event of any receivership, insolvency, bankruptcy, assignment for the
benefit of creditors, reorganization of Westar and its subsidiaries whether
pursuant to bankruptcy laws, sale of all or substantially all of the assets,
dissolution, liquidation or any other marshaling of the assets  and 
liabilities of the Company, no amount shall be paid by the Company in respect
of the principal and interest on this note unless and until all Bank One 
indebtedness shall have been paid in full together will all interest thereon.
The principal sum and the interest shall be due and payable in cash as 
follows:

Payments of Principal and Interest

  The total principal sum and interest thereunder shall be due and payable
and shall be paid by Westar to the Lender no later than March 31, 1998.
  This Note shall bear interest on the unpaid principal balance at a 
fluctuating rate per annum equal to eight percent (8%).  
  All interest payable in accordance with this Note shall be calculated on the
 basis of a 360-day year for the actual number of days the principal balance 
is outstanding.

     In case of a lawsuit or action is commenced to collect this note or any 
portion thereof  Westar promises to pay, in addition to the costs provided by 
statute, such sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorney's fees 
therein, (including any action to enforce the judgment and this provision as 
to attorney's fees and costs shall survive the judgment.)  Venue in any action
to enforce this Note shall, at holder's option, shall be in Thurston County,
Washington.


Mud Bay Holdings, Ltd.



-------------------------
R.W. Christensen, Jr., 
Its President


Westar Financial Services Incorporated



-------------------------
Thomas M. Foley
Vice President Finance and CFO
CONTROL 61580

Lisa Ramos to: Shaheerah Kelly 02/16/2010 02:38 PM

History: This message has been forwarded.

SHAHEERAH KELLY

CONTROL 61580

I HAVE ATTACHED THE REQUESTED INFORMATION FOR CONTROL 61580. PLEASE CONTACT 

ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

 

Lisa Ramos

Public Records Unit

909.396.3211
#### § 550.117 How does a determination of well producibility affect royalty status?

A determination of well producibility invokes minimum royalty status on the lease as provided in 30 CFR 1202.53.
H. R. 3439

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and six 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 201 North 

3rd Street in Smithfield, North Carolina, as the ‘‘Ava Gardner Post Office’’.

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 

201 North 3rd Street in Smithfield, North Carolina, shall be known 

and designated as the ‘‘Ava Gardner Post Office’’. 

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 ‘‘Ava Gardner 

Post Office’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### § 203.75 What risk do I run if I request a redetermination?

If you request a redetermination after we have granted you a suspension volume, you could lose some or all of the previously granted relief. This can happen because you must file a new complete application and pay the required fee, as discussed in § 203.62. We will evaluate your application under § 203.67 using the conditions prevailing at the time of your redetermination request. In our evaluation, we may find that you should receive a larger, equivalent, smaller, or no suspension volume. This means we could find that you do not qualify for the amount of relief previously granted or for any relief at all.