alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WHAMOND v. NORTH SIDE BOARD OF TRADE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Contracts (§ 333*)—Actions for Breach—Complaint.

In an action for breach of contract, the court should dismiss the complaint, where the contract as set forth did not show any binding obligation upon defendant.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. §§ 1196, 1640-1657, 1659; Dec. Dig. § 333.*]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by Reginald Whamond against the North Side Board of Trade. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed, and complaint dismissed.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ.

Cornelius J. Earley, of New York City, for appellant.

Emile Pincus, of New York City (William Kaufman, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

The alleged contract which forms the basis of plaintiff’s action was passed upon by the court on an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion for judgment thereon. 143 N. Y. Supp. 754. This court then said:

> “Nowhere does it appear that by said contract defendant was obligated to do any act.”

The plaintiff has amended the complaint by attaching thereto as an exhibit an open letter from defendant’s secretary to the effect that defendant was about to publish a booklet describing the attractions of the Bronx and that plaintiff was authorized to solicit the co-operation of the inhabitants of that section; that thereafter defendant through its publication committee co-operated with plaintiff to prepare for publication the advertising booklet which was the subject of the contract. There is nothing in any of this to supply the element lacking in the agreement, namely, of any obligation undertaken by the defendant.

Defendant’s motion for a dismissal of the complaint at the opening of the case should have been granted.

It may also be pointed out that, by the terms of the so-called agreement, the booklet to be públished was to be “under the absolute control as to size, contents, and general make-up, etc., of the committee (of the defendant) having charge of these matters. If the absence of any obligation on the part of the defendant, were it not already sufficiently clear, this condition voluntarily inserted in the agreement by plaintiff would of itself demonstrate that defendant’s co-operation was intended to be purely voluntary and subject to its own control and decision from time to time.

It is also doubtful whether the rule laid down in Wakeman v. Wheeler & Wilson Co., 101 N. Y. 217, 4 N. E. 264, 54 Am. Rep. 676, is *264broad enough to include the damages which plaintiff proved. That point need not, however, be further considered.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs.
#### § 3570.281 Grant servicing.

Grants will be serviced in accordance with 7 CFR part 1951, subpart E.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Knowles, Appellant.

In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered' January 5, 1967, which denied the application after a hearing. Order affirmed. In our opinion, the Criminal Term properly confined the hearing to the sole question of pretrial publicity *(People*v. *Sepos,*16 N Y 2d 662) and, as to that, appellant failed to demonstrate facts sufficient to warrant the granting of the relief sought (cf. *People*v. *Di Piazza,*24 N Y 2d 342; compare *People*v. *Ryan,*28 A D 2d 916, with *People*v. *Santana,*31 A D 2d 904, revd. 25 N Y 2d 827). Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Munder and Latham, JJ., concur.
§ 58.405 Meaning of words. For the purpose of the regulations in this subpart, words in the singular form shall be deemed to impart the plural and vice versa as the case may demand. Unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the following meaning: ( a ) *Cheese.* The fresh or matured product obtained by draining after coagulation of milk, cream, skimmed, or partly skimmed milk or a combination of some or all of these products and including any cheese that conforms to the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration for cheeses and related cheese products (21 CFR part 133).
( b ) *Milkfat from whey.* The fat obtained from the separation of cheese whey.
[40 FR 47911, Oct. 10, 1975. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 67 FR 48976, July 29, 2002]
Exhibit 32.1

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

     I, Jeffrey A. Leddy, Chief Executive Officer and President 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
          June 30 2005, 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/ JEFFREY A. LEDDY
                              --------------------
                              Name:   Jeffrey A. Leddy
                              Title:  Chief Executive Officer and President
                                      (Principal Executive Officer and
                                       Principal Financial Officer)
                              Date:   August 15, 2005


     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.
19–008 

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 107–780 

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE 

REPORT TO ACCOMPANY S. 1214, MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ANTITERRORISM ACT OF 2002

NOVEMBER 13, 2002.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 605] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 605, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference 

report to accompany S. 1214, the Maritime Transportation 

Antiterrorism Act of 2002, and against its consideration. The rule 

further provides that the conference report shall be considered as 

read.

Æ
#### Randall Cassem *v.*Charity A. Ernst *et al.*

*Opinion filed December 18, 1899.*

Appeals and *errors*— when *only question presented on appeal is one of fact.*The only question presented on appeal from a judgment in an action of debt is one of fact, upon which the Appellate Court’s judgment is final, where no question of law was raised by the pleadings, no objection was made to witnesses or evidence, and the only propositions of law submitted were appellant’s, which were held.

*Cassem*v. *Ernst,*84 Ill. App. 70, affirmed.

Appeal from the Appellate Court for the Second District; — heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Kendall county; the Hon. Charles A. Bishop, Judge, presiding.

*138Alschuler & Murphy, for appellant.

A. C. Little, for appellees.

Mr. Justice Boggs

delivered the opinion of the court:

Appellant brought an action in debt against appellees to recover on an injunction bond. A plea of *nil débet*and a special plea in bar were interposed. Issues of fact were joined without raising any questions of law in the course of the pleadings. Trial by jury was waived and the cause was submitted to and heard by the court. It is not complained error intervened in any ruling relative to the competency of any witness or the admissibility of testimony. The appellant presented two propositions embodying the principles of law which, as he conceived, should govern in the decision of the case, and no other propositions were passed upon. The court held both propositions as presented by appellant to be correct, but rendered judgment for the appellees.

As the court entertained the same views as did appellant as to the rules of law to be applied in the decision of the case, but adjudged he should not .recover, it is manifest the court did not agree with appellant as to conclusions of fact proper to be drawn from the evidence. If in this the court erred it was an error of fact. In such cases as this the power to review and correct errors of fact rests exclusively in the Appellate Court. That court considered the cause on an appeal prosecuted by the appellant and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The judgment of affirmance is conclusive on all questions of fact. The record in this court presents no questions.of law, hence the judgment of the Appellate Court must be and it is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.T 7 , *7*
Exhibit 18.1







March 30, 2011









AlphaMetrix Managed Futures LLC


181 West Madison 34th Floor


Chicago, IL 60602












Dear Sirs/Madams:




We have audited the financial statements of AlphaMetrix Managed Futures LLC, comprised of AlphaMetrix Managed Futures LLC (Aspect Series) (“Aspect Series”), (a series of a Delaware Series Limited Liability Company) (collectively the “Platform”) as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2010, included in your Annual Report on Form 10-K to the Securities and Exchange Commission and have issued our report thereon dated March 30, 2011, which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph concerning the accounting change to investment company master-feeder financial statement presentation whereby the financial statements of AlphaMetrix Aspect Fund – MT0001 (“Master Fund”) are not consolidated within the Aspect Series but are provided separately in conjunction with the Aspect Series’ financial statements. Under the master-feeder financial statement presentation the Aspect Series as a feeder fund presents its investment in the Master Fund as an investment in a separate entity. Note 1 to such financial statements contains a description of your adoption during the year ended December 31, 2010 of the accounting change to investment company master-feeder financial statement presentation. In our judgment, such change is to an alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances.




Yours truly,




/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
§ 3201.11 Roof coatings. ( a ) *Definition.* Coatings formulated for use in commercial roof deck systems to provide a single-coat monolith coating system.
( b ) *Minimum biobased content.* The minimum biobased content is 20 percent and shall be based on the entire product.
( c ) *Preference effective date.* No later than March 16, 2007, procuring agencies, in accordance with this part, will give a procurement preference for qualifying biobased roof coatings. By that date, Federal agencies that have the responsibility for drafting or reviewing specifications for items to be procured shall ensure that the relevant specifications require the use of biobased roof coatings.
( d ) *Determining overlap with an EPA-designated recovered content product.* Qualifying biobased products that fall under this item may, in some cases, overlap with the following EPA-designated recovered content product: Roofing Materials. USDA is requesting that manufacturers of these qualifying biobased products provide information for the BioPreferred Web site of qualifying biobased products about the intended uses of the product, information on whether or not the product contains any type of recovered material, in addition to biobased ingredients, and performance standards against which the product has been tested. This information will assist Federal agencies in determining whether or not a qualifying biobased product overlaps with recovered content roofing materials and which product should be afforded the preference in purchasing.
Note to paragraph ( d
):
Roof coating products within this designated item can compete with similar roofing material products. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, section 6002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated roofing material containing recycled material as items for which Federal agencies must give preference in their purchasing programs. The designation can be found in the Comprehensive Procurement Guideline, 40 CFR 247.12.
[71 FR 13705, Mar. 16, 2006, as amended at 73 FR 27953, May 14, 2008]
# 22.400 Scope of subpart.

This subpart implements the statutes which prescribe labor standards requirements for contracts in excess of $2,000 for *construction, alteration, or repair*, including painting and decorating, of public buildings and public works. (See definition of "*Construction, alteration, or repair*" in section 22.401.) Labor relations requirements prescribed in other subparts of part  22*may* also apply.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 22.4 - Labor Standards for Contracts Involving Construction
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001001.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001002.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001003.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001004.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001005.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001006.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001007.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001008.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001009.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001010.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001011.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001012.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001013.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001014.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001015.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001016.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001017.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001018.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001019.tif
- /app03/pdfs/100cr/000/15/2332t/00001020.tif
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofClayton Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Frank P. Filipps, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, and Frederick C. Herbst, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to ourknowledge, that:

 
| (1)    |   | The Report  fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                   |
| (2)    |   | The  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

Dated: May 15, 2006

 

 
| /s/ Frank P.  Filipps    |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Frank P.  Filipps        |   |
| Chief  Executive Officer |   |
|                     |   |
|                     |   |
| /s/ Frederick  C. Herbst |   |
| Frederick C.  Herbst     |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer |   |

 

----
#### § 58.136 Rejected milk.

A plant shall reject specific milk from a producer if the milk fails to meet the requirements for appearance and odor (§ 58.133(a)), if it is classified No. 4 for sediment content (§ 58.134), or if it tests positive for drug residue (§ 58.133(c)).

[58 FR 26913, May 6, 1993]
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

KELVIN BOWMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:03-cv-00177-MP-WCS

T. COPELAND,

L. MCDONALD,

C. MCKENZIE,

M. SPEIGHT,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 117, Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Order dated April 20, 2006 (Doc. 112). The order covers various discovery requests

made by the plaintiff, including requests for interrogatories as well as additional discovery.

After reviewing the order and all objections thereto filed, the court has determined that the order

should be affirmed. The court finds no error in the Magistrate's order, and plaintiff's objections

are without merit. Accordingly, the order is affirmed. In addition to his objections, plaintiff also

requests a copy of the local rules for the Northern District of Florida. This request is granted.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Order, Doc. 112, is affirmed and incorporated by

reference in this order.

2. The Clerk is directed to forward to the plaintiff a copy of the local rules for the

Northern District of Florida.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of May, 2006

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-00177-RS-WCS Document 120 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 1
#### C. William Sexstone et al., Appellants, v. City of Rochester et al., Respondents.

Judgment and order dismissing complaint as to defendant city

unanimously reversed and motion denied, and order granting motion to dismiss as to defendant Hanford unanimously affirmed, all without costs. Memorandum: The complaint against the city stated a cause of action for negligence against the city. The issuance by it of a certificate of occupancy for a building with violations would be a violation of subdivision 3 of section 302 of the Multiple Residence Law. It should have been obvious to the city that in view of subdivision 5 of section 302 of the Multiple Residence Law the certificate would be relied on by one purchasing the property. Since there was a duty to issue the certificate in a careful manner with knowledge that the plaintiffs would rely thereon, the city should be liable for the negligent issuance, if such was the case. *(Glanzer*v. *Shepard,*233 N. Y. 236; *Ultramares Corp.*v. *Touche, 255 N.*Y. 170.) This act did not involve discretion, and the municipality is liable for its wrongful action in issuing it. *(Bernardine*v. *City of New York,*294 N. Y. 361, 365.) The filing of the notice of claim was timely under sections 50-e and 50-i of the General Municipal Law, as it was within 90 days after the violations were discovered. The running of the 90-day period should be measured not from the time of the negligent act but from the date the negligent act produced injury to the plaintiffs. *(Konar*v. *Munro Muffler Shops of Rochester,*28 A D 2d 642; *Durant*v. *Grange Silo Co.,*12 A D 2d 694.) (Appeal from judgment and orders of Monroe County Court dismissing complaint in action for damages for breach of warranty in sale of real property.) Present1— Del Vecchio, J. P., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Core USD Fund, a series of the
Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Trust.
 /s/ John MarshallJohn MarshallChief Executive Officer of Brookshire Raw
Materials Management, LLC, the Managing Owner
of Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Trust/s/ Stephen AdamsStephen AdamsChief Financial Officer of  Brookshire Raw
Materials Management, LLC, the Managing Owner
of Brookshire Raw Materials (U.S.) Trust
Page
      Thirty One





Exhibit
32.2





Statement of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350








In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the chief financial
officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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

















/s/ R. Alan
      MillerR.
      Alan MillerPrincipal
      Financial OfficerNovember
      12, 2008
#### § 3565.14 Review and appeals.

Whenever RHS makes a decision that is adverse to a lender or a borrower, RHS will provide written notice of such adverse decision and of the right to a USDA National Appeals Division hearing in accordance with 7 CFR part 11 or successor regulations. The lender or borrower may request an informal review with the decision maker and the use of available alternative dispute resolution or mediation programs as a means of resolution of the adverse decision. Any adverse decision, whether appealable or non-appealable may also be reviewed by the next level RHS supervisor. Adverse decisions affecting project tenants or applicants for tenancy will be handled in accordance with 7 CFR part 1944, subpart L or successor regulations.