alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Herman A. Kamp, Doing Business as Kamp Fabrics, Appellant, v Ralph Schier, Respondent.

Appeal by plaintiff from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated July 23, 1979 as (1) denied his cross motion to strike the answer and counterclaim of defendant for failure to appear for an examination before trial, (2) directed that no tape recorder be allowed in the examining room and (3) set a new date for the examination. Order modified by adding thereto a provision that upon the court’s own motion, pursuant to CPLR 3104 (subds [a], [e]), the examination before trial in this case shall be supervised by a Referee, the expenses of whom shall be borne equally by the parties. As so modified order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements to defendant and the matter is remitted to Special Term for the appointment of a Referee and the selection of a new date upon which the examinations shall resume. The plaintiff is a veteran *pro se*litigator. He is not a lawyer. In this and another case he has shown himself to be an intractable opponent who has stubbornly refused to answer properly worded questions, has engaged in disruptive conduct, has insisted upon making speeches and reading documents into the record which could have been incorporated by reference and has constantly interrupted depositions by demanding rulings at every turn, thus occupying the attention of numerous Justices of the Supreme Court in Queens County (see *Kamp v DHJ Inds.,*75 AD2d 636). The eye of the storm which surrounds discovery involving this plaintiff seems to be the tape recorder which he uses to make a record of the proceedings (see *Kamp v Tiffany Knits,*79 Misc 2d 239). Plaintiff demands that all participants speak at top volume so that their voices can be recorded on what one opposing attorney described as "plaintiffs apparently deaf tape recorder.” Plaintiff frequently interrupts the proceedings to change tapes and to repeat questions and testimony which were missed by his machine. It was therefore entirely proper for Special Term to issue a protective order prohibiting plaintiffs use of the tape recorder (CPLR 3103, subd [a]). Finally, it is our *639view that under the exceptional circumstances present here, the appointment of a Referee is required to directly supervise disclosure (CPLR 3104, subd [a]). We note that in his brief on this appeal, defendant consents to bearing half the expense of the Referee if one is appointed and, in addition, consents to allowing plaintiff to use his tape recorder in disclosure proceedings before the Referee. Any such consent concerning the tape recorder should be made before the Referee at which time appropriate provisions can be made for its use so as to prevent a repetition of past abuses. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
ex106.htm


    Exhibit 10.6

    PIMI
AGRO CleanTech

     

    Pimi
Marion Holdings Ltd

    PO Box
117, Kibbutz Alonim

     

    6th
January 2009

     

    Prof.
Ilan Het

    2
Huberman Street

    Tel
Aviv

     

     

    Dear
Sir,

     

    Commission
Arrangement

     

    I hereby
confirm that insofar as you procure an investment in our company, you will be
entitled to commission at the following rates -

     

    
      	
              (a)

            	
              Commission
      at the rate of 5% of any cash investment in our company up to
      US$ 1 million.

            


    

     

    
      	
              (b)

            	
              Insofar
      as the investment exceeds $ 1 million, brokerage commission will
      be paid on the additional investment in excess of $ 1 million,
      as follows:

            


    

     

    
      	
               
      

            	
              on
      the second million dollars or part thereof -
4%;

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              on
      the third million dollars or part thereof -
3%;

            


    

    
      	
               
      

            	
              on
      any addition from the fourth million dollars or above -
  2%.

            


    

     

    
      	
              (c)

            	
              If
      the investment is raised or the transaction performed in stages, the
      brokerage commission will be paid on each stage at the time it is
      performed in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) above, based on the
      aggregate amounts of all the stages
together.

            


    

     

    
      	
              (d)

            	
              All
      the amounts will be subject to the addition of VAT on and against a due
      tax invoice.

            


    

     

    
      	
              (e)

            	
              In
      addition, you will be entitled to join the investor by investing in our
      company a maximum amount of up to 5% of the capital being invested in the
      company on the same terms as granted to the investor by our company. That
      option is effective for half a year from the date of the investment,
      subject to the period and the investment will also be approved by the
      investor.

            


    

     

    Yours
faithfully,

     

     

    Yuval
Sela, General Manager

    Pimi Agro
CleanTech Ltd

     

    Confirmation

     

    I hereby
agree to and accept your offer as set out above.

     

    (Signed)                                                                           6th
January 2009

    _______________                                                          _______________

    Prof.
Ilan
Het                                                                   Date
**EXHIBIT 33.4**

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK fsb**

**SERVICER’S REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

Washington Mutual Bank fsb (the “Asserting Party”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2006 and for the period fromJanuary 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) of the Platform Transactions (as defined below) with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB (12 CFR part 229.1122), except the following criteria 1, 2, 3,4(iii)-(xv), which we have concluded are either (i) not applicable to the servicing of the mortgage loans included in the Platform Transactions (each, a “Mortgage Loan”), or (ii) performed by other parties with respect to the Mortgage Loans (suchcriteria, after giving effect to the foregoing exceptions, the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”)**.**  The transactions covered by this Servicer’s Assessment are those securitizations of pools of mortgage loans for which the AssertingParty performed servicing functions set forth in Item 1122(d) that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and prior to January 1, 2007, and that included one or more classes of publicly offered securitiesregistered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform Transactions”).

The Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period, using the Applicable Servicing Criterion, and has concluded that it has complied in all material respects with the Applicable Servicing Criteria with respect to the Mortgage Loans. 

Deloitte & Touche LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Asserting Party’s assessment of compliance with theApplicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period.

Dated:    February 22, 2007

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK fsb

 

By: **/s/ RichardWardell**Name:  Richard WardellTitle:    Senior Vice President
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2763 

To suspend temporarily the duty on ethanol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2006 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on ethanol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Ethanol Fuel Supply 

5 Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ETHANOL. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

9 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

10 new heading: 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 2763 IS

‘‘ 9902.05.36 Ethyl alcohol (provided for 

in subheadings 2207.10.60 

and 2207.20) or any mixture 

containing such ethyl alcohol 

(provided for in heading 

2710 or 3824) if such ethyl 

alcohol or mixture is to be 

used as a fuel or in producing a mixture of gasoline 

and alcohol, a mixture of a 

special fuel and alcohol, or 

any other mixture to be used 

as fuel (including motor fuel 

provided for in subheading 

2710.11.15, 2710.19.15 or 

2710.19.21), or is suitable 

for any such uses ................. Free No change No change On or before 

10/1/2006 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

4 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

5 (c) EFFECT ON HEADING 9901.00.50.—Heading 

6 9901.00.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

7 United States is amended in the effective period column, 

8 by inserting ‘‘or during any period during which heading 

9 9902.05.36 is in effect’’ after ‘‘is not in effect’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Seamus Lagan, Chief Executive Officer of Medytox Solutions, Inc.,
certify that:



|1. |  | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Medytox Solutions, Inc.;
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

|2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and
|-- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|3. |  | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date:  April 24, 2015 |  |  | /s/ Seamus Lagan             
|--------------------- |  |  | -----------------------------
|                      |  |  | Seamus Lagan                 
|                      |  |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                      |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
# L_2014289EN.01002201.xml

| 3.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 289/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 289/22

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 29 September 2014

appointing three French members and two French alternate members of the Committee of the Regions

(2014/694/EU)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal of the French Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.

| (2) | Three members' seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Bruno BOURG-BROC, Mr Michel DELEBARRE and Mr Jean-Louis JOSEPH. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Three members' seats on the Committee of the Regions have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Bruno BOURG-BROC, Mr Michel DELEBARRE and Mr Jean-Louis JOSEPH.

| (3) | Two alternate members' seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Jean-Michel DACLIN and Ms Claudine LEDOUX, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Two alternate members' seats have become vacant following the end of the terms of office of Mr Jean-Michel DACLIN and Ms Claudine LEDOUX,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:

| a) | as members:






  — | Mr Bruno BOURG-BROC, Conseiller municipal de Châlons-en-Champagne (change of mandate) |
| --- | --- | --- |

a)

as members:

—

Mr Bruno BOURG-BROC, Conseiller municipal de Châlons-en-Champagne (change of mandate)

| — | Mr Michel DELEBARRE, Conseiller municipal de Dunkerque (change of mandate) |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Michel DELEBARRE, Conseiller municipal de Dunkerque (change of mandate)

| — | Ms Françoise MESNARD, Maire de Saint-Jean d'Angély |
| --- | --- |

—

Ms Françoise MESNARD, Maire de Saint-Jean d'Angély

and

| b) | as alternate members:






  — | Ms Karine DOGNIN-SAUZE, Adjointe au Maire de Lyon |
| --- | --- | --- |

b)

as alternate members:

—

Ms Karine DOGNIN-SAUZE, Adjointe au Maire de Lyon

| — | Mr Dominique LEVEQUE, Maire d'Aÿ. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Dominique LEVEQUE, Maire d'Aÿ.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 29 September 2014.

For the Council

The President

S. GOZI

---

(1)  
  OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.

2

---
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-158-CR

STEVEN JAMES WHITLEY	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM THE 213TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Steven James Whitley appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for DNA testing.  In his sole point, appellant complains that the trial court may have considered his guilty plea in denying the DNA testing request, which appellant contends is improper if identity was an issue in the case.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004) (prohibiting convicting court from finding that identity was not at issue solely on basis of guilty plea).

	Appellant admits that he was with the victim, his thirteen-year-old girlfriend, and does not deny that he had sex with her.  He simply contends that no assault occurred because he did not know her age.  Therefore, identity was not an issue in the case, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion if it considered appellant’s guilty plea in denying the DNA testing request.  See Morris v. State, 110 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003, pet. ref’d); Green v. State, 100 S.W.3d 344, 344-45 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. ref’d).  We overrule appellant’s point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	CAYCE, C.J.; HOLMAN and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: August 12, 2004
§ 70.101 Where to file an appeal. ( a ) *Appeal from resident grader's grading or decision in an official plant.* Any interested party who is not satisfied with the determination of the class, quality, quantity, or condition of product which was graded by a grader in an official plant and has not left such plant, and the operator of any official plant who is not satisfied with a decision made by a grader or any other matter relating to grading in such plant, may request an appeal grading or review of the decision by filing such request with the grader's immediate supervisor.
( b ) *All other appeal requests.* Any interested party who is not satisfied with the determination of the class, quality, quantity, or condition of product which has left the official plant where it was graded, or which was graded other than in an official plant, may request an appeal grading by filing such request with the regional director in the area where the product is located or with the Chief of the Grading Branch.
#### § 63.502 Personal liability.

No member or employee of the Board shall be held personally responsible, either individually or jointly, in any way whatsoever to any person for errors in judgment, mistakes, or other acts, either of commission or omission, as such member or employee, except for acts of dishonesty or willful misconduct.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

ALBERTO SOLER ,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 3:03cv515/RV/EMT

DONALD BAUKNECHT, WARDEN, 

Respondent.

______________________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation dated July 26, 2005. Petitioner has been furnished a copy of the

report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of the petitioner’s objections (doc.s 86, 95). 

Having considered the report and recommendation, and all objections thereto,

I have determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

(1) The magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

(2) The second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 63) is DENIED.

(3) The Clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of October, 2005.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

Senior United States District Judge 

Case 3:03-cv-00515-RV-EMT Document 96 Filed 10/11/05 Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0341 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SAMUEL RICHARD BONKO,

Defendant and Appellant

.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 8 , 202 1 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 1 2021

11/01/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0341
#### § 75.18 Sampling.

Sampling, when requested by the applicant, shall be in accordance with the methods of either the Association of Official Seed Analysts (AOSA) or the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA), depending upon the test method requested by the applicant.
52.233 [Reserved]

52.233-1 Disputes.

52.233-2 Service of Protest.

52.233-3 Protest after Award.

52.233-4 Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim.

Parent topic: Subpart 52.2 - Text of Provisions and Clauses
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RANDY L. WOULLARD,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO: 3:20-CV-5421-MCR-MAF

SERGEANT ERYN CARTER,

Defendant.

__________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation dated December 17, 2021 (ECF No. 94), which recommends 

denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as moot (ECF No. 90).

The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and 

afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, 

Section 636(b)(1). There have been no timely filed objections. Having considered 

the Report and Recommendation, and the record, I have determined the Report and 

Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 94) is 

adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

Case 3:20-cv-05421-MCR-MAF Document 98 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20-cv-5421-MCR-MAF

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 90) is DENIED as 

MOOT.

3. The case is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings 

consistent with this Order.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of January 2022.

_M. Casey Rodgers______________

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05421-MCR-MAF Document 98 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 2
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JOSHUA I. HARRIS

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 2636

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed April 13, 2018

3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County

, Jon B. Morgan , Judge.

Michael Ufferman, of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Robin A

. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Joshua I. Harris appeals the postconviction court’s order summarily denying his

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion for postconviction relief. Because the

court records attached to the denial order do not conclusively refute Harris’s claim in

ground two of his motion , in which he argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for

failing to call a defense witness at trial whose testimony Harris alleged wo uld ha v e2

established that he did not shoot the victim, we reverse that part of the order and remand

for the c o urt to either hold an evidentiary hearing on this ground or attach additional

records to its order conclusively refuting this claim. We otherwise affirm the order without

further discussion.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

TORPY

, BERGER and LAMBERT , JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6286
DAVID S. ADAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-866) Submitted: September 17, 1996 Decided: October 9, 1996 Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David S. Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Adams v. Warden , No. CA-95-866 (W.D. Va. Feb. 15, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED