alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas A. Sheehan et al, Respondents, v. Amity Estates, Inc., Appellant.

Brink, J.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of St. Lawrence County denying a motion to- dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a]). Plaintiffs’ complaint sets forth a cause of action for the rescission of a contract of purchase and sale of real estate entered into *595between the parties on or about the 20th day of July, 1962. The complaint further alleges that the plaintiffs were induced to enter into the contract because of representations upon which plaintiffs relied, to the effect that the property contained at least 147, acres of land and had access thereto from the public road. Pursuant to the contract, on July 20, 1965, after plaintiffs had paid a portion of the purchase price, together with certain interest and taxes, a deed was given by the defendant to the plaintiffs and a mortgage for the balance of the purchase price was executed by plaintiffs and delivered to the defendant. The complaint alleges that in October of 1965, after mating inquiries of adjacent property owners, plaintiffs discovered that the property contained only 123 acres rather than 147 acres and that the property was completely landlocked without any access road or easement whereby plaintiffs could obtain entrance thereto. The complaint does not allege that the representations were fraudulently made, but does set forth sufficient facts to allege a cause of action for a rescission on the grounds of unilateral mistake. The documentary evidence presented does not constitute a complete defense. The fact that the contract described the property as containing 147 acres, more or less, and contained a provision that the buyer is acquainted therewith and accepts the same and access thereto, in its present “ as is ” condition, does not constitute sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the complaint. The trial court found that the “as is” clause might well present a question of fact, requiring evidence to clarify its meaning. It cannot be determined from the face of the complaint as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs are estopped as a result of laches. Order affirmed, with $10 costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Psychological First Aid      

# Psychological First Aid

Psychological First Aid (PFA) is an evidence-informed approach for assisting children, adolescents, adults, and families in the aftermath of disaster and terrorism. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network and the National Center for PTSD are pleased to make the Second Edition of Psychological First Aid Field Operations Guide and accompanying hanouts available. In addition to the English-language edition of PFA, there are versions in Spanish, Japanese, and Chinese.

http://www.nctsn.org/content/psychological-first-aid
#### § 1210.314 Importer.

*Importer* means any person who imports watermelons into the United States as a principal or as an agent, broker, or consignee for any person who produces watermelons outside of the United States for sale in the United States.

[60 FR 10797, Feb. 28, 1995]
----

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY**

**ACT OF 2002**

 I, M. Glen Kertz, President, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F  of Nettron.com, Inc. (the “Company”);

2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual report 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 with respect to the period covered  by this annual report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other    financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all    material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash    flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual    report;
4.  The Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for  establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined  in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have: 

            a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information  relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known  to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which  this annual report is being prepared;

             b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures  as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the  "Evaluation Date"); and

             c)  presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the  disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation  Date;

5.  The Company's other certifying officers and I  have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors  and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing  the equivalent function): 

            a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls  which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize  and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any  material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

            b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees  who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls; and 

6.  The Company's other certifying officers and I  have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes  in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal  controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any  corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses

 1

                 /s/ Glen  Kertz   Glen Kertz   President   September 29, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sam E. Hibbitt, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed and matter remitted to Erie Special Term for a hearing. Memorandum: The petition alleges facts which entitle the petitioner to a hearing. (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term denying, without a hearing, motion to vacate a judgment of conviction for robbery first degree, entered April 10, 1953.) Present—Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecchio, JJ.
**Exhibit
      32.1**

















**STATEMENT
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**














I,
      Bruce
      A. Kehr, of InforMedix Holdings, Inc. (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:





(a)
            the
                Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended
                December 31, 2006, to which this certification accompanies (the “Annual
                Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





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








Dated:
      April 27, 2007





***s/
                Bruce A. Kehr***Bruce
                A. Kehr,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 InforMedix Holdings, Inc. and will be
      retained by InforMedix Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





***InforMedix
          Holdings, Inc.***
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In the Interest of P.M.G., a Child

No. 06-12-00120-CV

Appeal from the County Court at Law of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

05D1047-CCL). Opinion delivered by 

Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we remand the case to the trial court to determine the 

amount Bruce Garner, Jr., is obligated for medical support arrearage due before July 22, 2011. 

In all other respects, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant pay three-fourths (3/4) and the appellee pay onefourth (1/4) of all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 16, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
### ECONOMIC AND REGULATORY EVA LUATION

Regulatory Evaluation Form , Revision 2
. 4 Page 1 of 1 8/22/08 

### AD Title: RB211
- 535 LPT Stage 1
- 3 Disk inspection Docket No. FAA
- 2010
- 0994 Directorate Identifier: 2009
- NE
- 39
- AD Costs: Costs per Product (e.g., engine, propeller) Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work
h ours Labor cost ( @ $80/hour) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

U.S. Registered Products Total Cost

for U
. S
. Fleet Inspection 30.0 $2,550.00 $0 $ 2,550.00 588 $ 1,499,400 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0



### Total Cost s of c ompliance for U
. S
. fleet: $ 1,499,400



### Costs covered under warranty 0 Special considerations for Econom ic Analysis : Corrected number of US
- registered Engines. 

### Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be c onsidered a “significant regulatory action”? YES explain below NO DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES explain below NO Regulatory Flexibility A ct: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES explain below NO Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES explain below NO 

### Explanation:
#### 927.370 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 15.1**

 

**Letter re: Unaudited Interim Financial Information**

 

Board of Directors 

Chaparral Steel Company

 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration StatementNumber 333-126922 on Form S-8 and in the related prospectus of our report dated October 10, 2005 relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Chaparral Steel Company which are included in its Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended August 31, 2005. 

 

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of theSecurities Act of 1933 our report is not part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by accountants within the meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

October 13, 2005 

Dallas, Texas
#### § 1032.50 Class prices, component prices, and advanced pricing factors.

See § 1000.50.
#### § 1124.52 Adjusted Class I differentials.

See § 1000.52.
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1212 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.842.4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

November 2, 2011 

via email and regulations.gov 

Esta Rosenberg 

Chief, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Joint Application of Delta and WestJet 

 For Statements of Authorization 

Docket DOT-OST-2011-0199 

 

Dear Ms. Rosenberg: 

This letter is to confirm that Delta has polled all carriers on the service list to the above 

referenced application and there are no objections. In these circumstances, we urge that the 

application be granted as soon as possible. 

 

 

Respectfully submitted, 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

cc: Bob Finamore, DOT 

 Don Hainbach, Counsel to WestJet 

 info@airlineinfo.com
§ 1160.403 Confidential treatment. ( a ) All persons, including agents and former agents of the Board, all officers and employees and all former officers and employees of the Department, and all officers and all employees and all former officers and employees of contracting agencies having access to commercial or financial information obtained from such books, records or reports under the Act and this subpart shall keep such information confidential, and not make it available to Board members. Only those persons, as determined by the Secretary, who have a specific need for such information in order to effectively administer the provisions of this subpart shall have access to such information. In addition, they shall disclose only that information the Secretary deems relevant, and then only in a suit or administrative hearing brought at the discretion, or upon the request, of the Secretary, or to which the Secretary or any officer of the United States is a party, and involving this subpart. Nothing in this section, however, shall be deemed to prohibit: ( 1 ) The issuance of general statements based upon the reports of the number of processors, individuals, groups of individuals, partnerships, corporations, associations, cooperatives, or other entities subject to this subpart or statistical data collected from such sources, which statements do not identify the information furnished by any such parties, and
( 2 ) The publication, at the direction of the Secretary, of the name of any processor, individuals, group of individuals, partnership, corporation, association, cooperative, or other entity that has been adjudged to have violated this subpart, together with a statement of the particular provisions of the subpart so violated.
( b ) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, information obtained under this subpart may be made available to another agency of the Federal Government for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law and if the head of the agency has made a written request to the Secretary specifying the particular information desired and the law enforcement activity for which the information is sought.
( c ) Any person violating this section, on conviction, shall be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both, and if such person is an agent of the Board or an officer or employee of the Department shall be removed from office.
( d ) Nothing in this subsection authorizes the Secretary to withhold information from a duly authorized committee or subcommittee of Congress.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Heidi Messenger, Appellant.

[775 NYS2d 895]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered March 4, 2003, convicting her of assault in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly determined, after a hearing, that she violated certain conditions of her plea agreement *(see generally People v Outley,*80 NY2d 702 [1993], *cert denied sub nom. Maietta v Artuz,*519 US 964 [1996]).

Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant did not effectively waive her right to appeal her sentence *(see People v*
      *643
      *Boustani,*300 AD2d 313 [2002]; *People v Dongo,*244 AD2d 353 [1997]). However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see *People v Fields,*197 AD2d 633 [1993]; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.1








SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATION








In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Geneva Resources, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending
February 28, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the  "Report"), I, Marcus Johnson, Chief Executive
Officer/President of the Company and I, D. Bruce Horton, Chief
Financial  Officer/Treasurer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.








Date:
April 19, 2010


By: /s/ MARCUS JOHNSON


_____________________________________


Marcus Johnson


Chief Executive
Officer/President








Date:
April 19, 2010


By: /s/ D. BRUCE HORTON


_____________________________________


D. Bruce Horton


Chief Financial
Officer/Treasurer
Exhibit 10.1

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

AMENDMENT NO. 1


 This Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of June 5, 2017 by and between Alex B. Rozek (the “Executive”) and Boston Omaha Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).  

 

 The Company and the Executive are parties to an Employment Agreement dated August 1, 2015 (the “Agreement”). 

 

 Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:  

 

1. Amendment to Article II, Section 2.01(A) of the Agreement. The Company and the Executive agree that the Agreement is hereby amended by deleting all of Article II, Section 2.01(A), and inserting the following in its place:  

 

“The Executive will serve for a Base Salary equal to the federal minimum wage for the period through December 31, 2017 and shall not be entitled to any Base Salary in excess of the federal minimum wage for any period prior to such date. Commencing January 1, 2018, the Executive will receive a Base Salary at the rate of $275,000 per annum, payable in accordance with the Company’s payroll payment policy as in effect from time to time.” 

 

2. No Other Amendment. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain unamended and in full force and effect. This Amendment is only effective in the specific instance and for the specific purpose for which it is given and shall not be effective for any other purpose, and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of, amendment of, or consent to or modification of any other term or provision of the Agreement. 

 

3. Governing Law. This Amendment, the performance of this Amendment and any and all matters arising directly or indirectly herefrom shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the internal laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, without giving effect to the conflict or choice of law provisions and principles thereof.  

 

4. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts including facsimile or PDF counterpart signature pages, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.  

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have duly executed this Amendment as of the date first written above. 

 

	                                                                

	BOSTON OMAHA CORPORATION


	                                                                

	 

	(Registrant)


	 

	 

	 


	 

	By: 

	 /s/ Adam K. Peterson


	 

	 

	Name: Adam K. Peterson


	 

	 

	Title: Co-Chief Executive Officer


	 

	 

	 


	 

	EXECUTIVE


	 

	 

	 


	 

	 

	 /s/ Alex B. Rozek 


	 

	 

	Alex B. Rozek
607.503 Policy. ( e ) Requirements offices shall provide to the contracting officer a written determination that none of the functions to be performed are inherently governmental. This determination shall be included with the procurement request package, which is transmitted to the contracting officer to initiate an action. The Form DS-4208 may be used to meet this requirement. The contracting officer shall obtain review from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Buildings and Acquisitions (L/BA) of any request package that the contracting officer determines raises substantial questions as to the performance of inherently governmental functions. Disagreements regarding the determination shall be resolved by the head of the contracting activity.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Rivera, Appellant.

[776 NYS2d 484]

*411Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered August 27, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Although defendant had a suitable opportunity to state the basis for his motion, both personally and through counsel, neither defendant nor his attorney asserted any legal ground warranting vacatur of the plea or further inquiry (see *People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520 [1978]; *People v Escalera,*257 AD2d 525 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 899 [1999]). To the extent that defendant was complaining about the court’s enhancement of the originally promised sentence, the court properly rejected defendant’s arguments, since defendant had absconded prior to sentencing and his plea agreement clearly provided for an enhanced sentence in such event. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.