alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(115 App. Div. 173)

#### MUIR v. GREENE et al.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 19, 1906.

1. Mortgages—Consideration.

Where a creditor, at the request of the debtor’s wife, agreed to extend the time for payment of the indebtedness in consideration of the wife’s giving a mortgage on her property to secure the debt, and there was in fact a long forbearance, though there was no agreement for forbearance for a definite time, there was a sufficient consideration for the mortgage. [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 35, Cent. Dig. Mortgages, § 37.]

2. Same—Mortgage to Secure Advances—Failure to Make advances— Effect.

Where a wife gave a mortgage on her property in consideration of a forbearance by the husband’s creditor and of future advances to be made by the mortgagee to the husband, the mortgagee’s refusal to make further advances did not invalidate the mortgage.

Appeal from Special Term, New York County.

Action by Robert Muir against Harriette T. H. Greene and others. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff defendants appeal. Modified and affirmed.

*723Argued before O’BRIEN, P. J., and INGRAHAM, CLARKE, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.

Thaddeus D. Kenneson, for appellants.

Bela D. Eisler, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Brockway’s agreement to extend Greene’s time for the payment of his indebtedness, although not put in the form of an enforceable contract for a definite time, was in fact followed by long forbearance, and consequently, being made at Mrs. Greene’s request, furnished sufficient consideration for the mortgage. Strong v. Sheffield, 144 N. Y. 392, 39 N. E. 330. Brockway’s refusal to make further advances when requested did not serve to invalidate the mortgage. At most it could only have furnished a cause of action against him. We are unable to find any evidence, however, that Mrs. Greene ever consented that the $50 subsequently loaned should be included in the amount to be secured by the mortgage. Concededly this loan was not made as part of the future advances for which the mortgage was, in part, made, and neither party understood or intended, when this sum was loaned, that it was to be covered by the mortgage. The agreement to that effect was made afterwards by Greene and Broclcway, and apparently Mrs. Greene neither knew of this nor assented to it.

The judgment must therefore be modified by deducting from the principal sum found due the sum of $50, with a corresponding reduction of interest and allowance, and, as so modified, must be affirmed, without costs.
§ 1739.1 Purpose. ( a ) The provision of broadband service is vital to the economic development, education, health, and safety of rural Americans. The purpose of the Community Connect Grant Program is to provide financial assistance in the form of grants to eligible applicants that will provide, on a “community-oriented connectivity” basis, broadband service that fosters economic growth and delivers enhanced educational, health care, and public safety benefits. The Agency will give priority to rural areas that have the greatest need for broadband services, based on the criteria contained herein and in the RUS Community Connect Program application guide and/or the Community Connect Program website and in the funding opportunity announcement (FOA) posted on *www.Grants.gov .*
( b ) Grant authority will be used for the deployment of service to all premises in eligible rural areas at the Broadband Grant Speed on a “community-oriented connectivity” basis. In addition to providing service to all premises the “community-oriented connectivity” concept will stimulate practical, everyday uses and applications of broadband by cultivating the deployment of new broadband services that improve economic development and provide enhanced educational and health care opportunities in rural areas. Such an approach will also give rural communities the opportunity to benefit from the advanced technologies that are necessary to achieve these goals.
[78 FR 25791, June 3, 2013, as amended at 83 FR 45033, Sept. 5, 2018]
#### § 160.59 Appeal inspections.

Any inspection certificate issued by a licensed inspector may be appealed in writing to the Administrator, such appeal to state the circumstances, the certificate number, and the quantity and certified grade of the naval stores covered thereby. A prompt regrade inspection shall be made by an official inspector other than the original inspector.
#### Bosleys *vs.*The Commonwealth.

Indictment. Case 175.

Error to the Mercer Circuit; Kerry, Judge.

*Indictment. Jissault and Battery. Verdict. Judgment.*

October 23.

Indictment against seyecial for an assault and battery may be joint, and so may the trial, hut the verdict and judgment must be several.

Judge Underwood

delivered the opinion of the court.

Three men, named Bosley, were jointr ly indicted for an assault and battery committed on Demare. They pleaded not guilty jointly, were tried jointly, and found guilty jointly, by the verdict of the jury. The jury assessed their fine at two hundred and fifty dollars, and thereupon the court rendered a judgment jointly against them for the amount so assessed.

The error assigned is, that the verdict and judgment should have separately ascertained the liability of each defendant.

We think the verdict and judgment erroneous. Although the law allows a joint indictment and trial, still a joint judgment is erroneous, because there*599bv one of the defendants may be compelled to pay the whole amount, and in that event he would not be entitled to contribution from his co-defendants. Thus the other defendants would escape punishment entirely, and the whole burden might fall upon him who was least blameable in the transaction. So far it would savor of punishing one man for the guilt of another. -

Owsley, for plaintiffs; Morehead, *Attorney General,*for Commonwealth.

But the point is well settled bv authority, and thei-efore it is needless to do more than to refer to the books. See Jones vs. The Commonwealth of Virginia, I Call. 555; XI Coke. 42; II Hawkins, 633; Bacon’s Abridgment, title Fines and Amercements, letter C. 5.

The judgment must be reversed, and held for naught.
y 

S A N D ~ R S V I J:. L~ . • S 0 S 0 

May 7, 2012 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Reference; DOT-OST-2008-0209, 2001-10685, 2009-0305, 2000-7856 

~ .. . : ~ .. ... 

... . 

Greenville. MS, Laurel/Hattiesburg, MS. Tupelo, MS and Muscle Shoals, 

ALEAS 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

The Economic Development Authority of Jones County and The Jones County 

Chamber of Commerce located in Laurel, Mississippi wish to lend our support to the 

proposal of Silver Airways to provide essential air service at Hattiesburg-Laurel (PIB), 

Mississippi as replacement for current Delta Air Lines service. 

Local air service that provides an effective connection to the national and international 

air transportation system is critical to our economic well being and to that of our city, 

county, region and state. We, at the EDA/Chamber. rely on our local air service for both 

business and leisure travel. Being a community with a strong business sector. the 

commercial air service is a necessity for corporate, sales and 828 issues. 

The Silver Airways proposals offer us a modern 34-seat turboprop aircraft and flights to 

Atlanta, which is not only the largest hub airport in the world, but also a popular 

business and leisure travel destination from Hattiesburg-Laurel, Mississippi in its own 

right. 

We believe the Silver air service proposals represent the best option for retaining our 

local air service long term and building up traffic so that government subsidies can 

eventually be reduced or eliminated. 

We urge the Department of Transportation to award Silver Airways the designation to 

provide Hattiesburg-Laurel (PI B), Mississippi essential air service. Thank you. 

Regards, 

-/A)~~ 11{. ;;~ William M. Stennett 

President 

- . 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF JONES COUNTY 

Post Office Box 527 Laurel. MS 39441
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                               ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Report of ZIM Corporation, a Canadian corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael Cowpland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 18 U.S.C. 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) and
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 Cowpland
--------------------
Michael Cowpland
Chief Executive Officer
June 28, 2006
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

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

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

November 24, 2015

s1116 

# Order

Clerk November 24, 2015

150966

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150966

COA: 324335

Wayne CC: 09

- 029738

- FC

MIGUEL ANGEL CRUZ

- RIVERA

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 19 , 2014

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

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Lattarulo, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered May 31, 1979, affirmed. No opinion. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.
§ 1735.17 Facilities financed. ( a ) RUS makes hardship and guaranteed loans to finance the improvement, expansion, construction, acquisition, and operation of systems or facilities (including station apparatus owned by the borrower, headquarters facilities, and vehicles not used primarily in construction) to furnish and improve telephone service in rural areas, except as noted under paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) RUS makes RUS cost-of-money to finance the improvement, expansion, construction, and acquisition of systems or facilities (excluding station apparatus owned by the borrower, headquarters facilities, and vehicles not used primarily in construction) to furnish and improve telephone service in rural areas, except as noted under paragraph (c) of this section.
( c ) RUS will not make any type of loan to finance the following items: ( 1 ) Station apparatus (including PBX and key systems) not owned by the borrower and any associated inside wiring;
( 2 ) Certain duplicative facilities, see § 1735.12;
( 3 ) Facilities to provide service other than 1-party; and
( 4 ) System designs or facilities to provide service that cannot withstand or are not designed to minimize damage caused by storms and other natural catastrophes, including, but not limited to hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, mudslides, lightning, windstorms, hail, fire, and smoke, unless an alternate design or facility for modern telecommunications is more economically or technically feasible. Economic and technical feasibility will be determined using total long range economic costs and risk analysis.
( d ) Generally, RUS will not make a loan to another entity to provide the same telecommunications service in an area served by an incumbent RUS telecommunications borrower providing such service. RUS may, however, consider an application for a loan to provide the same type of service being provided by an incumbent RUS borrower if the Administrator determines that the incumbent borrower is unable to meet its obligations to the government, including the obligation to provide service set forth in its loan documents and to repay its loans.
( e ) If an unadvanced loan, or portion thereof, is rescinded, a new loan shall not be made for the same purposes as in the rescinded loan, except as provided in § 1735.47.
[54 FR 13351, Apr. 3, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39395, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 58 FR 66253, Dec. 20, 1993; 62 FR 46870, Sept. 5, 1997; 65 FR 42619, July 11, 2000; 84 FR 59921, Nov. 7, 2019]
§ 1740.79 Servicing of grants, loans and loan/grant combinations. ( a ) Awardees must make payments on the loan as required in the note and Award Documents.
( b ) Awardees must comply with all terms, conditions, affirmative covenants, and negative covenants contained in the Award Documents.
( c ) The sale or lease of any portion of the Awardee's facilities must be approved in writing by RUS prior to initiating the sale or lease.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 14.1

CODE OF ETHICS APPLICABLE TO THE CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRESIDENT
AND SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICER

Blue Dolphin Energy Company ("Blue Dolphin") requires ethical conduct in the
practice of financial management. The Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
President and Senior Financial Officer each hold an important and elevated role
in corporate governance. They are uniquely positioned and empowered to ensure
that the Company's, and its stockholders', interests are appropriately balanced,
protected and preserved. This code provides principles that these officers must
adhere to and advocate.

As the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, President or Senior Financial
Officer I will:

      -     Embody and enforce this Code of Ethics.

      -     Ensure that this Code of Ethics is communicated at least annually to
            all financial employees.

      -     Formally and promptly communicate any breach of this Code of Ethics
            to the Audit Committee.

      -     Act at all times with honesty, integrity and independence, avoiding
            actual or apparent conflicts of interest in personal and
            professional relationships.

      -     Discuss with the Audit Committee, in advance, any transaction that
            reasonably could be expected to give rise to a conflict of interest,
            or any transaction involving a related party.

      -     Provide full, fair, accurate, complete, objective, timely and
            understandable financial disclosures in internal reports as well as
            documents filed or submitted to the Securities Exchange Commission,
            any other government agency or self-regulatory organization, or used
            in public communications.

      -     Comply with all applicable rules and regulations of federal, state
            and local governments, the Securities Exchange Commission, the
            NASDAQ Small Cap Market and any other exchanges on which the
            Company's stock is listed, and other appropriate private and public
            regulatory agencies.

      -     Comply with the Company's policies and procedures.

      -     Act in good faith, responsibly, with due care, competence,
            diligence, and without knowingly misrepresenting material facts or
            allowing my better judgment to be subordinated.

      -     Protect and respect the confidentiality of information acquired in
            the course of my work except when authorized or otherwise legally
            obligated to disclose. Confidential information acquired in the
            course of my work will not be used for personal advantage.

      -     Be recognized as a responsible partner among peers.

      -     Responsibly use and control assets and other resources employed or
            entrusted to my supervision.
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1463.112 Successor in interest contracts. ( a ) A quota holder or tobacco producer who is eligible to receive a payment under this part, and for whom a claim has not been established by the United States, may enter into a successor in interest contract with another party using the correct CCC form. Such successor in interest contract will become effective upon approval by CCC, and will not include the 2005 payment. Only one such successor in interest contract may be entered into by a quota holder or tobacco producer with respect to a farm for each kind of tobacco.
( b ) Annually, CCC will establish, after consultation with the Department of the Treasury, a discount rate that reflects the value of any remaining payments due under this part if such payments were to be made as a lump sum payment in the current year. This discount rate will be determined as provided in § 1463.111(d)(2). Unless there is consideration for such contract in an amount equal to or greater than the discounted value of the payments, subject to the successor in interest or contract, based on the discount rate established for such payments by CCC, CCC will not approve any succession in interest contract other than to: ( 1 ) A family member; or
( 2 ) A party who had purchased a tobacco marketing quota prior to October 22, 2004 and had placed the quota on a farm with the owner's consent prior to that date in the manner that had been prescribed by FSA under part 723 of this chapter.
( c ) CCC will issue a payment, except the 2005 payment, to a successor party only if such party is otherwise in compliance with all other applicable regulations, which includes for successors to producer contracts only the wetlands and highly erodible land provisions of part 12 of this chapter. In accordance with part 1403 of this title, any claim owed by the successor party to the United States will be deducted from any payment made under this part prior to the issuance of the payment to the successor party.
( d ) CCC will report to the Internal Revenue Service any payment made under a successor in interest contract as income earned by the successor party.
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1707 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 302 East Green Street in Champaign, Illinois, 

as the ‘‘James R. Burgess Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1707 EH

1 SECTION 1. JAMES R. BURGESS JR. POST OFFICE BUILD2 ING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 302 East Green Street in Cham5 paign, Illinois, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘James R. Burgess Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘James R. Burgess 

11 Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1707 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostJr. Post Office Building’’. Champaign, Illinois, as the ‘‘James R. Burgess al Service located at 302 East Green Street in
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

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: 2023 National Blue Ribbon Schools      

# Resource: 2023 National Blue Ribbon Schools

This webpage features a press release and a video announcing the 2023 Blue Ribbon Schools. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program recognizes public and private elementary, middle, and high schools based on their overall academic excellence or their progress in closing achievement gaps among student subgroups. ED formally recognized the 313 public and 40 private schools selected as this year’s Blue Ribbon Schools at an awards ceremony on November 16 and 17, 2023, in Washington, DC. **Learn more.**
Exhibit 10.6


  


3. AMENDMENT


 


This third amendment (“3. Amendment”)
dated as of October 31st, 2012 (“Effective Date”) between Net Element, Inc (“Tenant”) and 1450 South Miami,
LLC (“Landlord”) amends that certain Lease Agreement for 1450 South Miami Avenue (the “Lease”) dated October
8, 2010 between Landlord and Tenant, the subsequent Amendment dated November 16, 2011 and the 2. Amendment dated September 28,
2012. All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning so proscribed in the Lease Agreement as well as
in the Amendment and in the 2. Amendment.


 


WHEREAS, the parties mutually agree to modify
certain terms and conditions in the Amendment.


 


WHEREAS, each Party acknowledges that as
of the Effective Date, to such Party’s knowledge, the other Party is not in material breach or Default pursuant to the terms
of the Lease Agreement, the Amendment and the 2. Amendment.


 


NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	Initial term extension. Tenant and Landlord agree to extend the term of the Lease until January 31, 2013. The
Base Rent for January 2013 shall be calculated as follows:



 


	 	 	 	 	 	PER SQFT	 	 	ANNUALLY	 	 	MONTHLY	 
	Base Rent	 	 	 	 	 	$	29.00	 	 	 	188,500.00	 	 	 	15,708.33	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Sales Tax	 	 	7.00	%	 	$	2.03	 	 	 	13,195.00	 	 	 	1,099.58	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TOTAL PAYMENT	 	 	 	 	 	$	31.03	 	 	 	201,695.00	 	 	 	16,807.92	 



 


		2.	Time is of the essence. Tenant agrees that this 3. Amendment has to be signed by Tenant on or before October
31, 2012 6:00pm EST.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have
caused this 3. Amendment to be duly executed by their respective authorized signatories as of the Effective Date


 


Net Element, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Tenant”)


By: Net Element International, Inc.


 


	/s/ Jonathan New	 
	BY: Jonathan New, Chief Financial Officer	 


 




    	Page 1 of 2



    	 



    

 


[DRAWING OF FLOORPLAN]