alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### H. F. Horn, Respondent, v. C. Robert Ketchum, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Century Real Estates, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Saratoga County, granting defendant-respondent’s motion to dismiss appellant’s third-party complaint. H. F. Horn brought an action against appellant to recover real estate brokerage commissions in connection with the sale of three lots. Thirty months later appellant served the third-party complaint here involved on defendant-respondent alleging that in the event that he be held liable to Horn for commissions on the sale of two lots that he recover back from defendant-respondent commissions already paid to it with respect to such sales. CPLR 1007 permits a defendant to proceed by third-party complaint against a person not a party “ who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him”. The test is thus whether the third-party defendant may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against the third-party plaintiff. It is not enough that the claim arose out of the same set of facts. The liability of the third-party defendant must rise from the liability of the defendant to the plaintiff (2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., pp. 10-88, 10-89). In the instant ease it is clear that the third-party claim is not *“*conditioned upon ”, does not *“*rise from ”, and is not *“*based upon ” the liability of defendant-respondent to Horn. If appellant paid commissions to the defendant-respondent under a mistake of fact, he would be able to seek recovery thereof irrespective of any liability to Horn. Thus the third-party complaint was properly held not sustainable under CPLR 1007 (see *contra, Merritt*v. *Rhodes,*232 App. Div. 422). Order affirmed, without costs and without prejudice to the commencement, within 30 days after service of the order to be entered hereon, of a separate action by Ketehum against Century and to an appropriate application to have the two then existing actions consoli*760dated or tried together. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision by Reynolds,- J.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JAMAL CHE GLENN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:02cv158-RS/WCS

TIMOTHY A. COPELAND, 

OFFICER LOPRESTI,

SGT. PALAZZOLO,

SGT. DELANEY F. STOE,

WARDEN HENRY D. ALFORD,

OFFICER M. ROGERS, 

and NURSE MARIA HALL,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

The extended discovery period granted in this case, see doc. 158, will end on

December 30, 2005. Most recently, the parties' consented motion to extend discovery,

doc. 157, was granted in part and denied in part. Doc. 158. Plaintiff was to have filed a

notice with the Court no later than December 15, 2005, if he had not received the

discovery sought earlier. Doc. 152. Because nothing has been received from Plaintiff,

it is accepted that Plaintiff's discovery issues are resolved.

Case 5:02-cv-00158-RS-WCS Document 163 Filed 12/22/05 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

1

 The parties are reminded to note this change in the case number.

Case No. 5:02cv158-MP/WCS

This case was reassigned to the Honorable Richard Smoak on November 16,

2005. Doc 160.1 This case has been pending since April of 2002, doc. 1, and it should

now be scheduled for a trial with District Judge Smoak as is consistent with his trial

schedule. The Clerk of Court shall therefore make that referral expeditiously.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall refer this file to the

assigned District Judge for scheduling the trial.

DONE AND ORDERED on December 22, 2005.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:02-cv-00158-RS-WCS Document 163 Filed 12/22/05 Page 2 of 2
Page
      Twenty Six





Exhibit
32.1





Statement of Chief Executive 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 March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the chief executive 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/ C.E. PorterC.E.
      PorterChief
      Executive OfficerMay
      12, 2009
#### § 51.2741 Unshelled.

*Unshelled* means a peanut kernel with part or all of the hull (shell) attached.
§ 51.1579 Application of tolerances to individual containers. ( a ) Based on sample inspection, the contents of individual containers in the lot are subject to the following limitations: *Provided,* That the averages for the entire lot are within the tolerances specified for the grade: ( 1 ) When a tolerance is 10 percent or more, not more than one-tenth of the individual containers in any lot may contain more than one and one-half times the tolerance specified, except that at least one defective and one off-sized specimen may be permitted in a container.
( 2 ) When a tolerance is less than 10 percent, not more than one-tenth of the individual containers in any lot may contain more than double the tolerance specified, but no package may contain more than four times the tolerance for soft rot or wet breakdown, except that at least one defective and one off-sized specimen may be permitted in a container.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Ronald W. Hovsepian, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Novell, Inc; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: May 25, 2007   /s/ RONALD W. HOVSEPIAN Ronald W. Hovsepian  President and Chief Executive Officer
# 46.304 Fixed-price service contracts.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.246-4, *Inspection* of Services-Fixed-Price, in *solicitations* and contracts for services, or *supplies* that involve the furnishing of services, when a fixed-price contract is contemplated and the contract amount is expected to exceed the *simplified acquisition threshold*. The *contracting officer**may* insert the clause in such *solicitations* and contracts when the contract amount is expected to be at or below the *simplified acquisition threshold* and inclusion is in the Government’s interest.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 46.3 - Contract Clauses
#### § 51.2008 Insect injury.

*Insect injury* means that the insect, frass or web is present inside the nut or the kernel shows definite evidence of insect feeding.
#### § 51.3415 Definitions.

*Similar varietal characteristics* means that the potatoes in any lot have the same general shape, color, and character of skin and color of flesh.

*Fairly well shaped* means that the potato is not materially pointed, dumbbell-shaped, or otherwise deformed.[2]

*Moderately firm* means that the potato is not seriously shriveled or flabbly.2

*Not seriously misshapen* means that the potato is not seriously deformed and causing more than 10% waste when determining the non-peelable area directly due to shape.

*Soft rot or wet breakdown* means any soft, mushy or leaky condition of the tissue such as Leak, slimy soft rot, wet type Fusarium Tuber Rot, or wet breakdown following freezing injury or heat injury.

*Loose sprouts, dirt and foreign material* means unattached sprouts or sprouts that become detached during the grading of the sample, stems, vines, adhering dirt, loose dirt, stones, trash and other extraneous material.

*Damage* means any defect listed in § 51.3416, or an equally objectionable variation of any one of these defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects, which cannot be removed without a loss of more than 5 percent of the total weight of the potato.

*Serious Damage* means any defect listed in § 51.3416, or an equally objectionable variation of any of these defects, any other defect, or any combination of defects, which cannot be removed without a loss of more than 10 percent of the total weight of the potato.

*External Defects* are defects which can be detected externally. Cutting may be required to determine the extent of the injury.

*Internal Defects* are defects which cannot be detected without cutting the potato.

###### Footnotes -
  51.3415

[2] USDA Visual Aid, POT-L 1 Jan 81. This publication may be examined in the Fruit and Vegetable Division, Fresh Products Branch, AMS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, South Building, Washington, DC 20250, or any field office of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Inspection Service. Copies of this visual aid may be purchased from the John Henry Company, P.O. Box 17099, Lansing, MI 48901 or United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, N. Washington at Madison, Alexandria, VA 22314.
**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**     In connection with the Annual Report of WSB Financial Group, Inc. (the “*Company*”) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “*Form 10-K*”), I, Mark D. Freeman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that: (1) The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.Dated:March 28, 2007         By:                                                /s/ Mark D. Freeman   Mark D. Freeman   *Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer*
#### SILVERMAN v. MARK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Judgment (§ 140*)—Default—Appearance—“Trial.”

On the day a ease was called for trial, and at the time when judgment was entered against the defendant, his counsel was engaged in the trial of a case in another city, and his office boy presented the excuse in the form of an affidavit to the trial judge, but the case was ordered to trial and a jury impaneled. *Held,*that the fact that the boy was present when the jury was impaneled, and while plaintiff was giving formal proof to warrant entry of judgment, did not make the proceeding a “trial,” as distinguished from a default, and that defendant was entitled to have the default opened without terms.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. § 252; Dec. Dig. § 140.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 8, pp. 7095-7103, 7821.]

*260Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.

Action by Wulf Silverman against Henry Mark. From an order of the City Court, denying defendant’s motion to open his default and vacate a judgment, he appeals.

Reversed, and default opened, without terms.

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

Jacob L. Holtzmann, of New York City, for appellant.

Henry Kuntz, of New York City (Abraham P. Wilkes, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

BIJUR, J.

It is not denied that the appellant’s counsel was, on the day and at the time when this judgment was entered against him, engaged in the trial of a case in the Municipal Court in Brooklyn, and that this excuse was properly presented to the judge below in the form of an affidavit; but this case was ordered to trial and a jury impaneled. A boy from the office of defendant’s counsel was present at the time, and, appreciating his own inexperience, he asked the clerk of another lawyer, with whom he was acquainted and who happened to be present in the court, to assist and advise him. The clerk referred to is not an attorney.

The learned judge below seemed to be of opinion that, because this boy and the young man were present when the jury was impaneled and while the plaintiff was giving formal proof to warrant the entry of judgment, the proceeding was a trial, and not a default. In this I think he was in error. There was not in court at that time either the defendant or any one authorized to represent him.

Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and default ■opened without terms. All concur.
Exhibit
34.1





Logo


















Report
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm






The Board
of Directors


U.S. Bank
National Association






We have
examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant to Item 1122 of
Regulation AB under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that U.S. Bank National
Association (the Company) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the
Structured Repackaging platform (the Platform) as of December 31, 2009, and for
the period from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, except for servicing
criteria 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i),
1122(d)(4)(vi), and 1122(d)(4)(ix)-(xv), which the Company has determined are
not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing
Platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria based on our examination.






Our
examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established
by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,
included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance
with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as
we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that
comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether
errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.


















1003-1138157










1











In our
opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of December 31, 2009, and for the period
from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, for the Structured Repackaging
platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



















March 5,
2010











2
28.309 Contract clauses for workers’

compensation insurance.

(a) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.228-3, Workers’ Compensation Insurance

(Defense Base Act), in solicitations and contracts when the Defense Base Act applies (see 28.305)

and-

(1) The contract will be a public-work contract performed outside the United States; or

(2) The contract will be approved or financed under the Foreign Assistance Act of1961

(Pub.L.87-195) and is not excluded by 28.305(b)(2).

(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.228-4, Worker’s Compensation and WarHazard Insurance Overseas, in solicitations and contracts when the contract will be a public-work

contract performed outside the United States and the Secretary of Labor waives the applicability of

the Defense Base Act (see 28.305(d)).

Parent topic: Subpart 28.3 - Insurance
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ian Spowart, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Liberty Energy Corp.
      for the year ended July 31, 2010 (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 Liberty Energy Corp.                                                           

Dated: October 18, 2010

| | /s/ Ian Spowart              
| | -----------------------------
| | Ian Spowart                  
| | President and Director       
| | (Principal Executive Officer)
| | Liberty Energy Corp.         

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 Liberty Energy
Corp. and will be retained by Liberty Energy Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
3.104-9 Contract clauses.       In solicitations and contracts that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, other than those for commercial products or commercial services, insert the clauses at—                                       (a)                   52.203-8, Cancellation, Rescission, and Recovery of Funds for Illegal or Improper Activity; and                                          (b)                   52.203-10, Price or Fee Adjustment for Illegal or Improper Activity.    **Parent topic:** 3.104 Procurement integrity.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

March 13, 2018

No. 17

- 2170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TENISHA CORTES,

Appellant

(E .D. Pa. No. 2

- 10

- cr

- 00770

- 010 )

Present: MCKEE, AMBRO and RESTREPO

, Circuit Judges

1. Letter from Attorne y Tomika N.S. P atterson, Esq. for Appellee USA,

advis ing the Court of a typographical error on page 6 , treated as a Motion

to Amend Opinion.

Respectfully,

Clerk/JK

____________________ __ ___________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion t o amend opinion is hereby granted. A corrected opinion will be

filed.

By the Court,

s/ L. Felipe Restrepo

Circuit Judge

Dated: M a rch 16, 2018
# 22.602 Statutory requirements.

Except for the exemptions at 22.604, all contracts	subject to 41 U.S.C.chapter 65, (the statute), and entered	into by any executive department, independent establishment, or	other agency or instrumentality of the *United States*, or by the	District of Columbia, or by any corporation (all the stock of which	is beneficially owned by the *United States*) for the manufacture	or furnishing of materials, *supplies*, articles, and equipment (referred	to in this subpart as *supplies*) in any amount exceeding $15,000,	*shall* include or incorporate by reference the stipulations required	by the statute pertaining to such matters as minimum wages, maximum	hours, child labor, convict labor, and safe and sanitary working	conditions.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 22.6 - Contracts for Materials, Supplies, Articles, and Equipment