alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Herbert Morris, Appellant, v Davis G. Lewis, Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages resulting from defendant’s fraudulent representations, plaintiff appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated June 28, 1979, which awarded him the principal sum of $17,500 on a jury verdict. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court, entered May 4, 1979, which denied plaintiff’s motion for an order increasing ("correcting”) the verdict of the jury to $35,000 or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the issue of damages. Judgment modified, on the law, by increasing the amount of plaintiff’s recovery to $35,000; the order is reversed and motion granted accordingly. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to plaintiff, and action remitted to Trial Term for entry of an appropriate amended judgment. Plaintiff brought this action alleging that defendant had fraudulently induced him to invest $35,000 in a nonexistent business venture. Defendant admitted the receipt of $35,000 from plaintiff, but denied having made any fraudulent misrepresentations to him. Although the record before us is limited, it is clear that the figure of $35,000 was the only damage amount discussed at trial. At the close of trial, the jury returned with a five to one general verdict in favor of plaintiff. When the court inquired of the jury as to the actual amount of the verdict, the foreman of the jury indicated that damages were "The total amount discussed.” The court then instructed the jury to retire and return with a verdict in a dollar amount. The jury subsequently returned with a unanimous verdict of $17,500. A motion by plaintiff to correct the verdict was subsequently denied. Plaintiff’s motion to correct the verdict should have been granted. In an action based on fraud, the true measure of damages is indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as a result of the wrong *(Reno v Bull, 226*NY 546). Ordinarily, the actual pecuniary loss sustained as a direct result of fraud which induces the purchase of a chattel is the difference between the amount paid and the value of the article received *(Hotaling v Leach & Co.,*247 NY 84). In the instant case, the only correct measure of damages is the difference between what plaintiff paid for his investment and what he received. The record shows that plaintiff paid $35,000 and received nothing in return. Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, Martuscello and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### § 370.3 Index.

Pursuant to the regulations in § 1.4(b) of this title, APHIS will maintain and make available for public inspection and copying a current index providing identifying information regarding the materials required to be published or made available under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2)). Notice is hereby given that publication of this index is unnecessary and impracticable, since the material is voluminous and does not change often enough to justify the expense of publication.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5



       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996

<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996

<CASH>                                         4,750
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,750
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,750
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          326,190
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       177,833
<OTHER-SE>                                     (499,273)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   (321,440)
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (165,168)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,137
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (169,305)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (169,305)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (169,305)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.006)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.006)
        


</TABLE>
16.406 Contract clauses.       (a)                    						            Insert the clause at 52.216-16, Incentive Price Revision-Firm Target, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract is contemplated. If the contract calls for supplies or services to be ordered under a provisioning document or Government option and the prices are to be subject to the incentive price revision under the clause, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate I.                                          (b)                    						            Insert the clause at 52.216-17, Incentive Price Revision-Successive Targets, in solicitations and contracts when a fixed-price incentive (successive targets) contract is contemplated. If the contract calls for supplies or services to be ordered under a provisioning document or Government option and the prices are to be subject to incentive price revision under the clause, the contracting officer shall use the clause with its Alternate I.                                          (c)                    						            The clause at 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment, is prescribed in 16.307(a) for insertion in solicitations and contracts when a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract or a cost-plus-award-fee contract is contemplated.                                          (d)                    						            The clause at 52.216-10, Incentive Fee, is prescribed in 16.307(d) for insertion in solicitations and contracts when a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract is contemplated.                                          (e)                    						            Insert an appropriate award-fee clause in solicitations and contracts when an award-fee contract is contemplated, provided that the clause-                                                         (1)                          								                Is prescribed by or approved under agency acquisition regulations;                                                            (2)                          								                Is compatible with the clause at 52.216-7, Allowable Cost and Payment; and                                                            (3)                          								                Expressly provides that the award amount and the award-fee determination methodology are unilateral decisions made solely at the discretion of the Government.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 16.4 - Incentive Contracts
#### § 2903.2 Purpose of the program.

The Biodiesel Fuel Education Program seeks to familiarize public and private vehicle fleet operators, other interested entities, and the public, with the benefits of biodiesel, a relatively new fuel option in the United States. It will also address concerns previously identified by fleet operators and other potential users of this alternative fuel, including the need to balance the positive environmental, social and human health impacts of biodiesel utilization with the increased per gallon cost to the user. It is the Program's goal to stimulate biodiesel demand and encourage the further development of a biodiesel industry in the United States.
#### § 4280.321 Grant and loan servicing.

In addition to the ongoing oversight of the participating MDOs, all grants will be serviced in accordance with applicable regulations, including 7 CFR part 1951, subparts E and O, 7 CFR part 3, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations including, but not limited to, 2 CFR parts 200, 215, 220, 230, and OMB Circulars A-110 and A-133. Loans to microlenders will be serviced in accordance with 7 CFR part 1951, subparts E, O, and R, and OMB Circular A-129.
ASSIGNMENT OF MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO LEASE AGREEMENT

 

THIS ASSIGNMENT OF MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT AND EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO LEASE AGREEMENT (“Assignment”) is made as of the ____ day of April, 2006, by and among SECURED INVESTMENT RESOURCES FUND, L.P**.**II,****a Delaware limited partnership (“SIR II”), and EVEREST BAYBERRY, LP, a California limited partnership (“Borrower”), each having its principal place of business at c/o Everest Properties, 199 S. Los Robles Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, California 91 101 Attn: W. Robert Kohorst, and WINBURY REALTY OF K.C., INC., a Missouri corporation (“Agent”).

 

**RECITALS:**

 

|   | A. | Borrower has requested a loan (the “Loan”) from LEHMAN BROTHERS |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|

BANK, FSB, a federal stock savings bank (“Lender”) in the principal sum of Two Million Nine Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($2,925,000.00).

 

B.        The Loan is secured by, among other things, that certain Security Instrument, which grants Lender a first lien on the property encumbered thereby (the “Property”).

 

C.        SIR II and Agent entered into that certain Property Management Agreement dated as of March 15, 2005 (the “Management Agreement”) (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A), pursuant to which SIR II employed Agent exclusively to rent, lease, operate and manage the Property and Agent is entitled to certain management fees (the “Management Fees”).

 

D.        SIR II and Agent entered into that certain Exclusive Right to Lease Agreement dated as of March 1, 2005 (the “Broker Agreement”) (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”), and Agent is entitled to certain broker fees (“Broker Fees”).

 

E.        As a condition to making the Loan, Lender is requiring that: (i) SIR II assign its interest in the Property, the Management Agreement, the Management Fees, the Broker Agreement, and the Broker Fees to Borrower, which is a wholly owned, single purpose subsidiary of SIR II; and (ii) Borrower assign the Management Agreement and the Broker Agreement, and subordinate its interest in the Management Fees and the Broker Fees in lien and payment to the Security Instrument as set forth in that certain Assignment Of Management Agreement And Subordination Of Management Fees, dated as of the date hereof (“Assignment and Subordination”).

 

**AGREEMENT:**

 

For good and valuable consideration the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

----
2005-2437.

#### Charles v. Mabe.

Franklin App. No. 05AP—410, 2005-Ohio-6106. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal is granted. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

etc.,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:02cv389-RH/WCS

CAPITAL GROUP HEALTH SERVICES

OF FLORIDA, INC., etc., et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________________/

ORDER SETTING HEARING ON MOTION

FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

The relator in this qui tam action has moved for voluntary dismissal with

prejudice of the claims against the remaining defendants. The defendants have

responded that they do not oppose the dismissal so long as defendants’ right to

seek an award of attorney’s fees and costs is preserved. The government has

responded that it does not oppose the dismissal so long as it is without prejudice to

the same claims if asserted directly by the government. So that the terms of any

dismissal may be appropriately addressed, 

IT IS ORDERED:

By separate notice, the clerk shall set a hearing by telephone for the earliest

Case 4:02-cv-00389-RH-WCS Document 110 Filed 09/02/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:02cv389-RH/WCS

available date. The relator shall be prepared to indicate whether he asserts

voluntary dismissal of the remaining claims should preclude defendants from

recovering costs or attorney’s fees if otherwise available under governing law. The

issue of whether defendants would in fact be entitled to an award of costs or

attorney’s fees under governing law will not be addressed. Defendants shall be

prepared to indicate whether they assert dismissal should be with or without

prejudice as to claims asserted directly by the government. See, e.g., United States

ex rel. Smith v. Lampers, 69 Fed. Appx. 719 (6th Cir. 2003).

SO ORDERED this 2d day of September, 2005.

s/Robert L. Hinkle 

Chief United States District Judge 

Case 4:02-cv-00389-RH-WCS Document 110 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01009-MP-AK

JOHN RICHARD KNOCK,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 986, Motion for Decree of Forfeiture of

Substitute Property by USA as to John Richard Knock. Being fully advised in the premises, the

Court finds: 

On February 11, 2005, the Court entered a Preliminary Order Of Forfeiture against the

following property: $3,122.53 and $9,620.00 in United States Currency pursuant to the

provisions of 21 U.S.C. 853 and based upon the Defendant’s conviction and the

Forfeiture Count of the indictment; 

On February, 21, 2005, the United States published in the Gainesville Sun, a newspaper

of general circulation, notice of this forfeiture and the intent of the United States to

dispose of the property, in accordance with the law, and further notifying all third parties

of their right to file a petition within thirty (30) days of the final publication setting forth

their interest in said property; and 

No other persons or entities having an interest in the above referenced property have filed

timely petitions.

Accordingly, it is hereby

Case 1:94-cr-01009-MP-GRJ Document 990 Filed 05/04/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:94-cr-01009-MP-AK

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The United States Motion for a Final Order Of Forfeiture, Doc. 986, is GRANTED. The

right, title and interest to the above-referenced property, is hereby condemned, forfeited

and vested in the United States of America, and shall be disposed of in accordance with

the law.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of May, 2005.

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:94-cr-01009-MP-GRJ Document 990 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 2
Case 4:99-cv-00020-WS-WCS Document 83 Filed 05/16/01 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2


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

     I, Craig J. Kaufmann, Controller and Treasurer of SkyTerra Communications,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:

     (1)  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
          March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
          on the date hereof (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.


                                       By: /s/ CRAIG J. KAUFMANN
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Name:  Craig J. Kaufmann
                                           Title: Controller and Treasurer
                                                  (Principal Accounting Officer)
                                           Date:   May 17, 2004


     This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

     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.
Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MARIA DOMINIQUE TURNER

n/k/a MARIA THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF

DONALD EDENFIELD, in his

official capacity as Sheriff of

Jackson County, Florida, and

ZACHARY WESTER, individually

Defendants.

JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS

Defendants, Donald Edenfield, in his asserted, capacity as the Sheriff 

of Jackson County, Florida, and Zachary Wester, individually, and Plaintiff, 

Maria Dominique Turner n/k/a Maria Thompson, through their undersigned 

counsel gives notice that all claims asserted and which might have been 

asserted against Defendants Sheriff and Wester, have been compromised 

and settled and dismissal of this lawsuit, with prejudice, by Plaintiff, is 

imminent.

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 58 Filed 11/14/22 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

DATED this 14th day of November 2022.

WARNER LAW FIRM, P. A.

/s/ Adrian Mendiondo_______ 

Adrian Mendiondo, Esq

Kentucky Bar No.: 90676

J. Ryan Will

Florida Bar No.: 0024122

Morgan and Morgan, P.A.

333 West Vine Street, Suite 1200

Lexington, Kentucky 40507

444 Seabreeze Boulevard, Suite 100

Daytona Beach, Florida 32118

amendiondo@forthepeople.com

rwill@forthepeople.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

/s/ Alyssa M. Yarbrough_________

Alyssa M. Yarbrough, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 103407 

501 West 11th Street, Suite A 

Post Office Box 1820 (32402)

Panama City, Florida 32401

Warner Law Firm, P.A. 

pleadings@warnerlaw.us

Counsel for Defendant Sheriff

/s/ Riley Landy_________________

Riley Landy, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 84411

Andrews, Crabtree, Knox, & 

Longfellow, LLP

1558 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 1

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

rlandy@andrewscrabtree.com

jhunter@andrewscrabtree.com

mwise@andrewscrabtree.com

mhoman@andrewscrabtree.com

Counsel for Defendant Wester

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 58 Filed 11/14/22 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was filed via CM/ECF 

this 14th day of November 2022, which will serve a copy to all counsel of 

record. 

/s/ Alyssa M. Yarbrough

ALYSSA M. YARBROUGH

Florida Bar No. 0103407

Case 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF Document 58 Filed 11/14/22 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AT March 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR FISCAL QUARTER ENDED March 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<CASH>                            2,830,723
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                     1,164,753
<ALLOWANCES>                          6,872
<INVENTORY>                         348,840
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  4,846,565
<PP&E>                            5,952,873
<DEPRECIATION>                    4,779,916
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   14,653,158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             3,687,143
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                          30,722
<COMMON>                          2,156,143
<OTHER-SE>                        6,476,712
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     14,653,158
<SALES>                           5,670,431
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  6,827,142
<CGS>                             4,298,805
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     4,783,804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  9,667,083
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  302,342
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (7,926,087)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (7,926,087)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (7,926,087)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (0.42)



</TABLE>