alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
339 A.2d *56.*

#### David A. Streeter *et al. vs.*James Signorelli *et al.*

JUNE 12, 1975.

Present: Roberts, C. J., Paolino, Joslin, Kelleher and Doris, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court denying and dismissing a petition for mandamus. The record indicates that on September 19, 1969, in District Court, Ronald W. Reed entered a plea of guilty to a charge of violating G. L. 1956 (1968 Reenactment) §31-8-2. He was ordered to pay and did pay a fine of $5 and costs. Within 5 days he appealed to the Superior Court.

On April 23, 1970, in District Court, David A. Streeter entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of violating §31-14-1. He was placed on probation for 6 months. Within 5 days he appealed to the Superior Court.

On July 30, 1972, in the Wardens Court of the Town of New Shoreham, Allan R. Hartman entered a plea of guilty to a charge of violating the provisions of the town ordinance forbidding the drinking of alcoholic beverages in a public place. He was ordered to pay a fine of $20 and costs. He paid the fine and filed a claim of appeal to the Superior Court.

*745The clerk of each of the trial courts neglected and refused to certify the papers and the appeals to the Superior Court. The defendants1 in each case filed a complaint in Superior Court seeking a writ of mandamus directed to the respective court clerk ordering him to certify the appeal to the Superior Court.

After hearing in Superior Court, the trial justice entered judgment denying and dismissing the petition for mandamus. The sole question before us on defendants’ appeal from that judgment is whether defendants were entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the clerks of the respective trial courts to certify the papers and appeals to the Superior Court.

Our opinion in *Malinou*v. *McElroy,*99 R. I. 277, 207 A.2d 44 (1965) is dispositive of the issue raised here. In that case we held that where a duty imposed by statute on a clerk of court was purely ministerial, it was error for the Superior Court to refuse to issue mandamus. Here, under the provisions of G. L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §12-22-6, the clerks of the respective trial courts, in cases where appeals have been filed, are required to certify the papers to the clerk of the Superior Court. We hold this to be a purely ministerial duty, and thus it clearly falls within the rule in *McElroy.*

The trial justice therefore erred when he denied and dismissed the complaint and refused to issue mandamus.

The defendants’ appeal is sustained, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Superior Court with directions to enter a judgment granting the petition for a writ of mandamus.

*746*Berberian & Tanenbaum, Aram K. Berberian,*for appellants.

*Richard J. Israel,*Attorney General, *George H. Egan,*Special Asst. Attorney General, for appellees.

1

Messrs. Reed, Streeter, and Hartman, although petitioners in Superior Court and appellants before this court, shall be referred to as defendants for purposes of this opinion.
#### OSTRANDER, Respondent, v. HELDERBERG CEMENT CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 20, 1903.)

Action by John M. Ostrander against the Helderberg Cement Company.

No opinion. Motion denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 56 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.56
                                      Agreed to December 3, 2018        

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the Architect of the Capitol is authorized and directed to 
transfer the catafalque which is situated in the Exhibition Hall of the 
Capitol Visitor Center to the rotunda of the Capitol so that such 
catafalque may be used in connection with services to be conducted 
there for the late George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st President of the 
United States.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
# FY 2016 NEW

# Sheet3
Warrant Repurchase Letter Agreement, dated October 28, 2009



 Exhibit 10.1 
 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 
 1500 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW 
 Washington, D.C. 20220 
 October 28, 2009 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Reference is made to the redemption of preferred shares as of the date set forth on Schedule A hereto (the “Preferred
Shares”), by the company set forth on Schedule A hereto (the “Company”). 
 The Company has
completed the redemption of all of the Preferred Shares issued to the United States Department of the Treasury (the “Investor”) pursuant to the Securities Purchase Agreement dated November 21, 2008 between the Company and the
Investor. Following such time, the Company delivered a Warrant Repurchase Notice dated as of the date set forth on Schedule A hereto to the Investor. In connection with the consummation, on the date hereof, of the repurchase of the Warrant by
the Company from the Investor, as contemplated by the Warrant Repurchase Notice and Section 4.9 of the Securities Purchase Agreement: 
 (a) The Company hereby acknowledges receipt from the Investor of the Warrant; and 
 (b) The Investor hereby acknowledges receipt from the Company of a wire transfer to the account of the Investor set forth on Schedule A hereto in immediately available funds of the aggregate purchase
price set forth on Schedule A hereto, representing payment in full for the Warrant, determined in accordance with Section 4.9 of the Securities Purchase Agreement. 
 This letter agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the federal law of the United States if and to the extent such
law is applicable, and otherwise in accordance with the laws of the State of New York applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely within such State. 
 This letter agreement may be executed in any number of separate counterparts, each such counterpart being deemed to be an original instrument, and all such counterparts will together constitute the same
agreement. Executed signature pages to this letter agreement may be delivered by facsimile and such facsimiles will be deemed sufficient as if actual signature pages had been delivered. 







 In witness whereof, the parties have duly executed this letter agreement as of the date
first written above. 
  

			
	UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Herbert M. Allison, Jr.

	Name:	 	Herbert M. Allison, Jr.
	Title:	 	Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability
	
	CENTERSTATE BANKS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ James J. Antal

	Name:	 	James J. Antal
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### 3452.201-70 Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).

As prescribed in 3401.604-70, insert a clause substantially the same as:

# Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) (MAR 2011)

(a) The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) is responsible for the technical aspects of the project, technical liaison with the contractor, and any other responsibilities that are specified in the contract. These responsibilities include inspecting all deliverables, including reports, and recommending acceptance or rejection to the contracting officer.

(b) The COR is not authorized to make any commitments or otherwise obligate the Government or authorize any changes that affect the contract price, terms, or conditions. Any contractor requests for changes shall be submitted in writing directly to the contracting officer or through the COR. No such changes shall be made without the written authorization of the contracting officer.

(c) The COR's name and contact information:

(d) The COR may be changed by the Government at any time, but notification of the change, including the name and address of the successor COR, will be provided to the contractor by the contracting officer in writing.

(End of Clause)
# C_2019093EN.01000101.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2019/C 93/01)

Last publication

OJ C 82, 4.3.2019

Past publications

OJ C 72, 25.2.2019

OJ C 65, 18.2.2019

OJ C 54, 11.2.2019

OJ C 44, 4.2.2019

OJ C 35, 28.1.2019

OJ C 25, 21.1.2019

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
28.106-5 Consent of surety. ( a ) When any contract is modified, the contracting officer shall obtain the consent of surety if— ( 1 ) An additional bond is obtained from other than the original surety;
( 2 ) No additional bond is required and— ( i ) The modification is for new work beyond the scope of the original contract; or
( ii ) The modification does not change the contract scope but changes the contract price (upward or downward) by more than 25 percent or $50,000; or
( 3 ) Consent of surety is required for a novation agreement (See subpart 42.12).
( b ) When a contract for which performance or payment is secured by any of the types of security listed in 28.204 is modified as described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, no consent of surety is required.
( c ) Agencies shall use Standard Form 1414, Consent of Surety, for all types of contracts.
[48 FR 42286, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 61 FR 31652, June 20, 1996]
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: In the matter of T. S.

Appellate case number: 01-17-00825-CV

Trial court case number: JV21772

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 & Probate Court of Brazoria County

This is an accelerated appeal from a juvenile certification judgment. On January 4, 2018, 

Appellant was granted a one-time 21-day extension to file his brief. Appellant timely 

filed his brief on January 24, 2018. 

On February 13, 2018—the day the State’s brief was due—State’s counsel filed a first 

motion for extension of time to file its brief. In the motion, the State avers: “Length of 

time requested for extension: 30 days until March 11, 2018”; however, it is noted that an 

extension until March 11, which is a Sunday, would be a 26-day extension, not a 30-day 

extension. 

Appeals in juvenile certification cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 

days of the date the notice of appeal is filed, so far as reasonably possible. See Order 

Accelerating Juvenile Certification Appeals and Requiring Juvenile Courts to Give 

Notice of the Right to an Immediate appeal, Misc. Docket No. 15-9156 (Tex. Aug. 28, 

2015). The notice of appeal in this case was filed on October 27, 2017, from the juvenile 

certification judgment signed on September 26, 2017, setting the 180-day compliance 

deadline for April 25, 2018. See id. at 3(a).

This appeal is currently set for submission on March 21, 2018.

Although this is the State’s first extension request, the accelerated schedule in juvenile 

certification cases requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines and greater 

scrutiny of extensions. State’s counsel contends that an extension is needed because, 

among other reasons, he is busy preparing briefs in two criminal appeals. Counsel has 
not listed whether he has already requested extensions in these cases. See TEX. R. APP. P.

10.5(b)(1)(C), 38.6(d). 

Accordingly, the State’s motion for an extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED, in 

part, until March 6, 2018, but no further extensions will be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually 

Date: February 15, 2018
Amendment No. 5 to Note (Master Revolving Note dated December 29, 2006)



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Amendment No. 5 to Note 
  
  
 This Amendment to Note (“Amendment”), made,
delivered, and effective as of October 29, 2009, by and between MANITEX LIFTKING, ULC (“Borrower”) and COMERICA BANK (“Bank”). 
 WHEREAS, Borrower and Bank are parties to that certain Master Revolving Note in the original principal amount of CDN $3,500,000 dated December 29, 2006, as amended (“Note”); and 
 WHEREAS, Bank and Borrower desire to amend the Note as set forth below; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises contained in this Amendment, Borrower and Bank agree as follows: 
  

	1.	The face amount of the Note is now CDN $5,500,000. 

  

	2.	The execution of this Amendment shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any Default or Event of Default. 

  

	3.	All the terms used in this Amendment which are defined in the Note shall have the same meaning as used in the Note, unless otherwise defined in this Amendment.


  

	4.	This Amendment is not an agreement to any further or other amendment of the Note. 

  

	5.	Borrower expressly acknowledges and agrees that except as expressly amended in this Amendment, the Note, as amended, remains in full force and effect and is ratified, confirmed
and restated. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Amendment on the date set forth above. 

 

									
	MANITEX LIFTKING, ULC	 		 	COMERICA BANK
					
	By: David H. Gransee	 	  
	 		 	By: James Q. Goudie	 	  

					
	Its: VP & CFO	 	  
	 		 	Its: VP & AGM	 	  









 CONSENT OF GUARANTOR 
 The undersigned consents to the foregoing amendment as of the date thereof and reaffirms and ratifies all of its obligations to the Bank under its
Guaranty of the Indebtedness of the Borrower to the Bank. 
  

			
	 MANITEX, LLC

		
	 By: David H. Gransee
	 	  




			
		
	 Its: VP & CFO
This webpage provides  students, families, and institutions with information about the College  Financing Plan. The College Financing Plan has been previously referred to as  the Financial Aid Shopping Sheet.

  The  College Financing Plan is a consumer tool that participating institutions use  to notify students about their financial aid package. It is a standardized form  that is designed to simplify the information that prospective students receive  about costs and financial aid so that they can easily compare institutions and  make informed decisions about where to attend school. In July 2012, the U.S.  Department of Education (Department) released the College Financing Plan and asked institutions to  voluntarily commit to using it to supply financial aid information to students  in a way that could be understood and compared easily. The College Financing  Plan became available for use beginning in the 2013-2014 award year.  

In  2020, the Department released an additional form to reflect the needs of  graduate and professional school students more accurately. The Department  worked with the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, the National Association of  College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), financial aid administrators  and other stakeholders, and received valuable input to create the Graduate and  Professional school form.  

**HTML Specification**

  Institutions and their software providers may use the attached  HTML specifications to produce and populate the College Financing Plan, using  the applicable fields from their existing data systems. The HTML specifications  include a “download” button on the College Financing Plan so that students may  save their student aid offer information in XML, a machine-readable format.  This XML layout is also attached. We encourage institutions providing students  with their College Financing Plan in electronic format to include this feature.

  Institutions delivering the College Financing Plan in print form  may remove the “download” button. For convenience, a PDF version of the College  Financing Plan is also attached.

  Questions may be directed to collegefinancingplan@ed.gov

The CFP is updated annually, and this website lists only the most up to date version. 

**Documents**:

  Undergraduate  form:

2024-25 Annotated Undergraduate College Financing Plan 2024-25 Undergraduate College Financing Plan Template 2024-25 Undergraduate College Financing Plan Technical Guide2024-25 Undergraduate  HTML Specification

   Graduate/Professional Form: 

2024-25 Annotated Graduate/Professional School College  Financing Plan 2024-25 Graduate/Professional College Financing Plan Template 2024-25 Graduate/Professional College Financing Plan  Technical Guide2024-25 Graduate/Professional  HTML Specification

**Other**:
2024-25 College Financing Plan (FAQ) (updated 3/19/2024)
24-25 Electronic Announcement: https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/electronic-announcements/2023-10-31/2024-2025-college-financing-plan

 

OPE Policy Page | OPE Home
  Last Modified: 03/19/2024
3401.601 General. ( a ) Contracting authority is vested in the Secretary. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the CAO. The Secretary has also delegated contracting authority to the SPE, giving the SPE broad authority to perform functions dealing with the management direction of the entire Department's procurement system, including implementation of its unique procurement policies, regulations, and standards. Limitations to the extent of this authority and successive delegations are set forth in the respective memorandums of delegations.
#### 3409.507-2 Contract clause.

The contracting officer must insert the clause at 3452.209-71 (Conflict of interest) in all contracts for services above the simplified acquisition threshold.
#### 30.201-6 Findings.

See 48 CFR 9903.201-6.

[61 FR 18917, Apr. 29, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 40237, July 25, 1997; 85 FR 67614, Oct. 23, 2020]
247.271-3 Solicitation provisions, schedule formats, and contract clauses. When acquiring services for the preparation of personal property for movement or storage, or for performance of intra-city or intra-area movement, use the following provisions, clauses, and schedules. Revise solicitation provisions and schedules, as appropriate, if using negotiation rather than sealed bidding. Overseas commands, except those in Alaska and Hawaii, may modify these clauses to conform to local practices, laws, and regulations. ( a ) In solicitations and resulting contracts, the schedules provided by the installation personal property shipping office. Follow the procedures at PGI 247.271-3(c) for use of schedules.
( b ) In addition to designating each ordering activity, as required by the clause at FAR 52.216-18, Ordering, identify by name or position title the individuals authorized to place orders for each activity. When provisions are made for placing oral orders in accordance with FAR 16.504(a)(4)(vii), document the oral orders in accordance with department or agency instructions.
( c ) The clause at 252.247-7014, Demurrage. See additional information at PGI 247.271-3(c)(1) for demurrage and detention charges.
( d ) The clause at 252.247-7016, Contractor Liability for Loss and Damage.
( e ) The clauses at FAR 52.247-8, Estimated Weight or Quantities Not Guaranteed, and FAR 52.247-13, Accessorial Services—Moving Contracts.
[56 FR 36466, July 31, 1991, as amended at 65 FR 50145, Aug. 17, 2000. Redesignated and amended at 75 FR 51417, Aug. 20, 2010; 78 FR 38235, June 26, 2013; 79 FR 22037, Apr. 21, 2014; 83 FR 30588, June 29, 2018; 83 FR 49179, Sept. 28, 2018; 84 FR 25195, May 31, 2019; 84 FR 30951, June 28, 2019]
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Certron
Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended January 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the
Report), I, Marshall I. Kass, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, hereby 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 result of operations of the
Company.

| |  |                      |  |                                              
| |  | -------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Marshall I. Kass
| |  |                     
| |  | Name :               |  | Marshall I. Kass                             
| |  | Title:               |  | Chairman of the Board Chief Executive Officer
| |  | Date :               |  | March 12, 2004                               

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.

10
#### 2419.804-3 SBA acceptance.
#### Harry Swift, Doing Business as Swift’s Service Center, Respondent, v. Andrew J. Dolfini, Jr., Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Orange Comity, entered May 27, 1963. The appeal was erroneously taken to this court. The Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department is presently vested with the jurisdiction of such appeals from the County Court, Orange County. The motion and the appeal are therefore transferred to said Appellate Term of the Supreme Court (see N. Y. Const., art. VI, § 5, subd. b; § 8, subd. d; order No. 47 of this court, dated July 12, 1962). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
| **CFDA #**                         | **Grant Title** |
|------------------------------------|-----------------|
| State Personnel Development Grants |
|                               |

**84.323A** | State Personnel Development Grants

### Competition Closed
02/04/201 1 09:2 ? FA X 202493514 2 FA A. n» o "^" ^ •> • DM S glOOl/00 2 

# fviSffiON. , U.S . DEPARTMENT O FTRANSPORIAriON/' f FE B -L | A

, Q - j i OfFTCE : O FHEARING S ' ^ ^ WASHlNCj'lON , DC . I N rH E MATTEROJ

FREEDO M AIRHINES , INC . FA A DOCKET NO. : (:PU9SW000 5 (CIVIL p.F;NAi;r

Y CASE ) DM S FAA-200y-098 0

NOTIC FO FSETTLEIvrRN T A n Order O n Siaiu s o f

Ca.se (th e "Order" ) wa s issue do n Januar y 3 , 201 1 directin g ih c partie s l o notif y th e Cour t ri;g<irdiii g th e statu s o f

pendin g settlement

discussions . Th e fbllo>A'in g NoLic e of Scttlemcrt

i s offeredin satisfaclio n o f (he Order . Tli c partie s hav e agree dupon seitlemeni . lerm s whic h wil l b e fuialize din th e claim s ;idmiais(ratio n procedure s o f Mesa' s Bankruptc y cas e pendin g i n (he Unite dState s liankiiipte y (."oiu

l fo r ih c .Soullier

n L>i.siric ( o T New Yor

k (Mes aAir

Group , Inc . e

l al. . Cas e No. : 10 - 1001 8 (MO)) . mjtte

d(hi-s 28" ' dn

y o f Januar y 201 1 llllrisLoptie r J . Pappaioaiio u V.P , Lega l Affair s Freedo mAirl)nes , Inc .



### -- P 

# AP^iM G :"'>':cKP "02/04/201 1 09:2 7 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 121002/00 2

f/S A Docke t

No . C.P09SW{)00 5 SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S" W Washington , D C 2059 1 Atlenlion : Hearin g Docke t Clwk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suu c 2W100 0

ON E COP Y Annjene t Chennault , Complainant' s Coun-Sel Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counse l Southwes t

Region , ASW-7E4 , A C Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 2601MeachaTnBlv d For t Work , T X 7613 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U S Departmen t

o f Iransportaiio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue . SF , Eas t Biiildin B Groun dFloor , Roo mE-12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0