alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
38637.

#### FIRST STATE BANK v. HALL FLOORING COMPANY.

Decided March 7, 1961.

*271*Hamilton Burch, Eberhardt, Franklin, Barham & Coleman, Ed. G. Barham,*for plaintiff in error.

*Robert L. Cork,*contra.

Nichols, Judge.

The sole question presented for decision is whether the letter from B to X, in which B agreed to make payment jointly to C and X (such arrangement being acceptable to C), was a legal assignment of C’s chose in action. No question is presented as to B’s obligation as a guarantor or surety for any debt owed by C to X, and all other questions were expressly abandoned by the plaintiff in error.

“Any language, however informal, will be sufficient to constitute a legal assignment, if it shows the intention of the owner of the right to transfer it instantly, so that it will be the property of the transferee. *Southern Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Durdin,*132 Ga. 495 (1) (64 S. E. 264, 131 Am. St. Rep. 210). It is further true, however, that 'an instrument, other than a draft, purporting to assign a sum of money to be paid out of a fund claimed to be in the hands of another, without describing the identical money intended to be conveyed, will not of itself convey legal title to any part of the fund which in fact may be in *272the hands of such other person.’ *W. & A. R. Co. v. Union Investment Co.,*128 Ga. 74 (1) (57 S. E. 100). And measuring it by this rule, we are of the opinion that the writing in question did not operate to> convey legal title to the fund in controversy and therefore did not constitute a legal assignment. See also *Baer v. English,*84 Ga. 403 (1) (11 S. E. 453, 20 Am. St. Rep. 372). Did it amount to an equitable assignment? In the case of *Jones v. Glover,*93 Ga. 484 (1) (21 S. E. 50), it is said, ‘In order to infer an equitable assignment, such facts and circumstances must appear, as would not only raise an equity between the assignor and the assignee but show that the parties contemplated an immediate change of ownership with respect to the particular fund in question, not a change of ownership when the fund should be collected or realized, but at the time of the transaction relied upon to constitute the assignment.’ ” *Brown Guano Co. v. Bridges,*34 Ga. App. 652, 655 (130 S. E. 695).

The purported assignment in the present case did not show an intention to transfer the fund immediately since the payment was to be made jointly to the purported assignor and assignee without any distinction being shown as to their separate interest in such fund, and for such reason the paper could not constitute either an equitable or legal assignment and the judgment of the trial court so holding was not error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.*
Exhibit 31.2



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

CERTIFICATION





|I, Robert T. Malasek, certify that:
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|1.                                 
|                                   
|2.                                 
|                                   
|3.                                 
|                                   
|4.                                 
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|5.                                 
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|                                   
|Date:   October 13, 2004           
|                                   
|
Exhibit 21

                             LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Jurisdiction     Percent Owned
Name of Subsidiary                            of Incorporation   by Registrant
------------------                            ----------------   -------------

Active
------
<S>                                             <C>                  <C> 
NUR Media Solution S.A.                            Belgium           100%

NUR Advanced Technologies (Europe) S.A.            Belgium           100%

NUR America Inc.                                  Delaware           100%

M.NUR Marketing & Communication GmbH               Germany            84%

NUR Middle East & Africa, Ltd.                     Israel            100%

NUR Asia Pacific Ltd.                             Hong Kong          100%


<CAPTION>
Inactive
--------
<S>                                             <C>                  <C> 
NUR Hungaria KFT (1)                               Hungary           100%

Good-Lux S.A. (1)                                Luxembourg          100%

M.B.T. (NUR) Industries Ltd.                       Israel            100%

NUR Print Technologies (1993) Ltd.                 Israel            100%

N.A.T. Holdings and Investments (1997) Ltd.        Israel            100%
</TABLE>

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

(1)   Represents the percentages of ownership of NUR Media Solutions S.A. in
      these subsidiaries.
EXHIBIT
31.2




Certification
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






I, Jay C.
Leatherman, Jr., certify that:






1.     
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Avitar,
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;






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;






4.     
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:






a)     
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;






b)     
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and






c)     
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and






5.
     The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of the internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):






a)     
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the 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
who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.








Date:  February
14,
2008                                                                      /S/ Jay C. Leatherman,
Jr.


Jay C. Leatherman, Jr.


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Accounting and


Financial
Officer)
February 14, 2011

Via Email

Gerardo Rios (Air-3)

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

Re: Docket Number: EPA-R09-OAR-2010-1078; Revision to the South Coast 

Portion of the California State Implementation Plan, CPV Sentinel Energy 

Project AB 1318 Tracking System

Dear Mr. Rios: 

On behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, we submit these comments on the 

above-referenced proposed revision to the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) for California. As 

EPA is intimately aware, the use and creation of credits to demonstrate compliance with the 

Clean Air Act’s New Source Review provisions are vital to ensuring expeditious progress 

towards attainment. As regions throughout the state seek to comply with the Clean Air Act’s 

mandate to meet federal clean air standards on time, we remain concerned about any efforts that 

erode progress in the nation’s most polluted air sheds. We also remain concerned about 

proposals that set poor precedents for air quality planning. With this in mind, NRDC views the 

creation of credits from prior air pollution gains as precisely the type of actions that concern our 

organization and our tens of thousands of members in California. 

In sum, this proposed rule moving forward now poses concerns about these questionable 

credits prior to EPA’s action on Rule 1315. Please do not hesitate to call us at (310) 434-2300. 

Sincerely, 

David Pettit

Senior Attorney

Adriano L. Martinez

Project Attorney
§ 520.766 Domperidone. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of gel contains 110 milligrams (mg) domperidone.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See No. 043264 in § 510.600 of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in horses* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer 0.5 mg per pound (mg/lb) (1.1 mg/kilogram (kg)) by mouth once daily starting 10 to 15 days prior to the expected foaling date. Treatment may be continued for up to 5 days after foaling if mares are not producing adequate milk.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For prevention of fescue toxicosis in periparturient mares.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[75 FR 67031, Nov. 1, 2010]
Editorial Note on Part 177
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 177 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005; and 81 FR 49896, July 29, 2016.

§ 177.1400 Hydroxyethyl cellulose film, water-insoluble. Water-insoluble hydroxyethyl cellulose film may be safely used for packaging food in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) Water-insoluble hydroxyethyl cellulose film consists of a base sheet manufactured by the ethoxylation of cellulose under controlled conditions, to which may be added certain optional substances of a grade of purity suitable for use in food packaging as constituents of the base sheet or as coatings applied to impart desired technological properties.
( b ) Subject to any limitations prescribed in parts 170 through 189 of this chapter, the optional substances used in the base sheet and coating may include: ( 1 ) Substances generally recognized as safe in food.
( 2 ) Substances permitted to be used in water-insoluble hydroxyethyl cellulose film by prior sanction or approval and under conditions specified in such sanctions or approval, and substances listed in part 181, subpart B of this chapter.
( 3 ) Substances that by any regulation promulgated under section 409 of the act may be safely used as components of water-insoluble hydroxyethyl cellulose film.
( 4 ) Substances identified in and used in compliance with § 177.1200(c).
( c ) Any substance employed in the production of the water-insoluble hydroxyethyl cellulose film described in this section that is the subject of a regulation in parts 174, 175, 176, 177, 178 and § 179.45 of this chapter conforms with any specification in such regulation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           9,703
<SECURITIES>                                    56,497
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,214
<INVENTORY>                                     11,241
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,435
<PP&E>                                          16,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,254
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            22
<OTHER-SE>                                      90,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,295
<SALES>                                        120,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,439
<CGS>                                           55,953
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   55,953
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   268
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 222
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,488
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,705
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,783
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**FIRST MARINER BANCORPCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuantto, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, Edwin F. Hale, Sr.,Chief Executive Officer of First Mariner Bancorp (the “Company”) hereby certifythat (i) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  March 16, 2006 | /s/ Edwin F. Hale,  Sr.  |   |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                        | Edwin F. Hale,  Sr.      |
|                        | Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
§ 522.23 Acepromazine. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each milliliter of solution contains 10 milligrams (mg) acepromazine maleate.
( b ) *Sponsors.* See Nos. 000010 and 058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs, cats, and horses* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Dogs: 0.25 to 0.5 mg per pound (/lb) of body weight; Cats: 0.5 to 1.0 mg/lb of body weight; Horses: 2.0 to 4.0 mg per 100 lbs of body weight.
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For use as a tranquilizer and as a preanesthetic agent.
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Do not use in horses intended for human consumption. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[75 FR 10167, Mar. 5, 2010; 78 FR 17597, Mar. 22, 2013; 79 FR 16182, Mar. 25, 2014; 86 FR 14819, Mar. 19, 2021]
Editorial Note on Part 179
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 179 appear at 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005.

§ 179.21 Sources of radiation used for inspection of food, for inspection of packaged food, and for controlling food processing. Sources of radiation for the purposes of inspection of foods, for inspection of packaged food, and for controlling food processing may be safely used under the following conditions: ( a ) The radiation source is one of the following: ( 1 ) X-ray tubes producing X-radiation from operation of the tube source at a voltage of 500 kilovolt peak or lower.
( 2 ) Sealed units producing radiations at energy levels of not more than 2.2 million electron volts from one of the following isotopes: Americium-241, cesium-137, cobalt-60, iodine-125, krypton-85, radium-226, and strontium-90.
( 3 ) Sealed units producing neutron radiation from the isotope Californium-252 (CAS Reg. No. 13981-17-4) to measure moisture in food.
( 4 ) Machine sources producing X-radiation at energies no greater than 10 million electron volts (MeV).
( 5 ) Monoenergetic neutron sources producing neutrons at energies not less than 1 MeV but no greater than 14 MeV.
( b ) To assure safe use of these radiation sources: ( 1 ) The label of the sources shall bear, in addition to the other information required by the Act: ( i ) Appropriate and accurate information identifying the source of radiation.
( ii ) The maximum energy of radiation emitted by X-ray tube sources.
( iii ) The maximum energy of X-radiation emitted by machine source.
( iv ) The minimum and maximum energy of radiation emitted by neutron source.
( 2 ) The label or accompanying labeling shall bear: ( i ) Adequate directions for installation and use.
( ii ) A statement that no food shall be exposed to radiation sources listed in paragraph (a)(1) and (2) of this section so as to receive an absorbed dose in excess of 10 grays.
( iii ) A statement that no food shall be exposed to a radiation source listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section so as to receive an absorbed dose in excess of 2 milligrays.
( iv ) A statement that no food shall be exposed to a radiation source listed in paragraph (a)(4) of this section so as to receive a dose in excess of 0.5 gray (Gy).
( v ) A statement that no food shall be exposed to a radiation source listed in paragraph (a)(5) of this section so as to receive a dose in excess of 0.01 gray (Gy).
[42 FR 14635, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 48 FR 46022, Oct. 11, 1983; 61 FR 14246, Apr. 1, 1996; 64 FR 69191, Dec. 10, 1999; 66 FR 18539, Apr. 10, 2001; 69 FR 76404, Dec. 21, 2004]
Exhibit
      10.1




TERMINATION
        AGREEMENT OF


"MANUFACTURING
        AND SUPPLY AGREEMENT"





This
      Termination Agreement of the Manufacturing and Supply Agreement between Mitsui
      Chemicals, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "MCI") and Southwall Technologies
      Inc. (hereinafter referred to at "STI") dated June 26, 2003 (hereinafter
      referred to as the "Agreement") amends and supersedes the Agreement.





This
      Termination Agreement is effective as of November 15, 2007 (the "Effective
      Date"). This Termination Agreement documents the agreement between the parties
      hereto with regard to early termination of the Agreement.





Unless
      otherwise specifically provided for or amended in this Termination Agreement,
      all capitalized definitions used herein shall have the meanings provided for
      them in the Agreement.





According
      to Article 14 (Term and Termination) of the Agreement, the Agreement was
      scheduled to remain in effect until December 31, 2007. As a result of MCI's
      decision to cease purchasing PDP Films, and in consideration for early
      termination of the previously committed binding forecast, MCI agrees to pay
      STI
      three million United States Dollars ($3,000,000) for the undelivered quantities
      of PDP films.





The
      parties agree that two million nine hundred fifty-nine thousand and three
      hundred and thirty three United States dollars represents a portion of the
      unabsorbed fixed expenses in STI's Dresden, Germany plant resulting from MCI's
      early termination of the previously committed 2007 binding forecast.





The
      parties specifically agree that MCI's fulfillment of its payment obligation
      set
      forth in the above terms constitutes full settlement of the "take or pay"
      provision described in Article 9.2 of the Agreement.





With
      the
      exception of the payment obligation of MCI reflected in this Termination
      Agreement, upon the termination of the Agreement, the parties hereby release
      and
      forever discharge each other (and each party's successors or assigns) from
      any
      and all demands, damages, actions and claims of every kind. whether known or
      unknown, from the beginning of time to the present, including, without
      limitation, any claims arising out of the Agreement.





Notwithstanding
      the foregoing, the obligations set forth in Article 10 (Product Liability),
      11
      (Future Cooperation), 12 (Secrecy), and 15 (Governing Law and Arbitration)
      of
      the Agreement shall survive the termination of the Agreement.





This
      Termination Agreement shall be governed and construed by the laws of the State
      of New York, U.S.A.





Mitsui
                Chemicals, Inc.
            Southwall
                Technologies Inc.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed May 29, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01428-CV 

CHAD BROZOVICH, Appellant 

V. 

GLEN A. BELLINGER, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-12052 

MEMORANDUM OPINION NUNC PRO TUNC 

Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated December 3, 2014, we 

informed appellant that the Dallas County District Clerk notified the Court that the clerk’s record 

had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s 

record. We directed appellant to provide verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the 

clerk’s record or to provide written documentation that he had been found entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that if appellant did not file the required 

documentation within ten days, we might dismiss the appeal without further notice. To date, 

appellant has not provided the required documentation or otherwise corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of the clerk’s record. 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). 

141428F.P05 

 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC 

CHAD BROZOVICH, Appellant 

No. 05-14-01428-CV V. 

GLEN A. BELLINGER, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-12052. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion nunc pro tunc of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee GLEN A. BELLINGER recover his costs of this appeal 

from appellant CHAD BROZOVICH. 

Judgment entered May 29, 2015.