alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Philip Bialer, Respondent, v City of New York, Respondent, and Hudson River Park Trust, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 471]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered on or about December 28, 2004, which granted petitioner’s motion to file a late notice of claim against appellant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner’s failure to set forth a reasonable excuse for its failure to serve its notice of claim within the statutorily prescribed 90 days did not, under the particular circumstances at bar, require the denial of its motion for leave to serve a late notice *(see Matter of Porcaro v City of New York, 20*AD3d 357, 358 *305[2005]). The timely referral of petitioner’s case to appellant by the State, pursuant to an indemnification agreement, afforded appellant sufficient indicia of a causal connection between the accident and its conduct, as well as an opportunity to investigate *(cf. Pineda v City of New York,*305 AD2d 294 [2003]), and given the short delay beyond the statutory 90 days, appellant was not prejudiced *(see Price v Herstic,*240 AD2d 151, 152 [1997]). Accordingly, the grant of petitioner’s motion constituted a proper exercise of discretion. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Ellerin, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Norbert Sporns, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002, to
the best of his knowledge, that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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: November 14, 2007



/s/ Norbert SpornsNorbert SpornsChief Executive Officer
§ 53.4958-8 Special rules. ( a ) *Substantive requirements for exemption still apply.* Section 4958 does not affect the substantive standards for tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) or (4), including the requirements that the organization be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes, and that no part of its net earnings inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. Thus, regardless of whether a particular transaction is subject to excise taxes under section 4958, existing principles and rules may be implicated, such as the limitation on private benefit. For example, transactions that are not subject to section 4958 because of the initial contract exception described in § 53.4958-4(a)(3) may, under certain circumstances, jeopardize the organization's tax-exempt status.
( b ) *Interaction between section 4958 and section 7611 rules for church tax inquiries and examinations.* The procedures of section 7611 will be used in initiating and conducting any inquiry or examination into whether an excess benefit transaction has occurred between a church and a disqualified person. For purposes of this rule, the reasonable belief required to initiate a church tax inquiry is satisfied if there is a reasonable belief that a section 4958 tax is due from a disqualified person with respect to a transaction involving a church. See § 301.7611-1 Q&A 19 of this chapter.
( c ) *Other substantiation requirements.* These regulations, in § 53.4958-4(c)(3), set forth specific substantiation rules. Compliance with the specific substantiation rules of that section does not relieve applicable tax-exempt organizations of other rules and requirements of the Internal Revenue Code, regulations, Revenue Rulings, and other guidance issued by the Internal Revenue Service (including the substantiation rules of sections 162 and 274, or § 1.6001-1(a) and (c) of this chapter).
[T.D. 8978, 67 FR 3083, Jan. 23, 2002]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                                 10,373
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         122,584  
<ALLOWANCES>                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                            39,098 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      174,350
<PP&E>                                              1,083,549
<DEPRECIATION>                                        223,386 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,129,812  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 233,380
<BONDS>                                               440,000
<COMMON>                                                2,579
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                               416
<OTHER-SE>                                            380,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        1,129,812
<SALES>                                               887,723
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      894,814
<CGS>                                                 735,040
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         735,040
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      129,389
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     27,708
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         2,677
<INCOME-TAX>                                              677
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     2,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            2,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (.42)
        
 

</TABLE>
#### § 31.3101-3 When employee tax attaches.

The employee tax attaches at the time that the wages are received by the employee. For provisions relating to the time of such receipt, see § 31.3121(a)-2.
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy Nickelson, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 51,440.

First District, Second Division.

January 21, 1969.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Constantine P. Xinos, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant; John J. Stamos, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and John M. Goldberg, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE McCORMICK.

Not to be published in full.
Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.51 
 SECOND AMENDMENT 
 TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 ALLIANCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GP, LLC 
 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 
 WHEREAS, Alliance Resource Management GP, LLC (the “Company”) maintains the
Alliance Resource Management GP, LLC Amended and Restated Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company
desires to transfer sponsorship of the Plan to Alliance Coal, LLC (“Coal”); and 
 WHEREAS, Coal desires to accept the
transfer of the sponsorship of the Plan; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of May 15, 2006 sponsorship of the Plan is hereby
transferred to Coal and the Plan is amended by replacing “Alliance Resource Management GP, LLC” with “Alliance Coal, LLC” in all places in the Plan in which “Alliance Resource Management GP, LLC” appears, including,
without limitation, in the title of the Plan. 
 EXECUTED this 24th day of January, 2007, effective for all purposes as of May 15, 2006. 
  

			
	ALLIANCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GP, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas L. Pearson

	Name:	 	Thomas L. Pearson
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President
	
	ALLIANCE COAL, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Thomas L. Pearson

	Name:	 	Thomas L. Pearson
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President
#### Tatyana Shpakovskaya, Appellant, v Wilfred Etienne et al., Respondents.

[804 NYS2d 767]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated July 7, 2004, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The defendants’ medical experts examined the plaintiff 21/s *369years after the subject accident and determined that she suffered no limitations or restrictions in motion, and no impairments or disabilities. This established, prima facie, that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). However, the plaintiff submitted an affirmation of a radiologist identifying the presence of herniated discs on magnetic resonance imaging films, as well as an affirmation of her treating physician connecting the herniations with “additional objective medical evidence establishing that the accident resulted in significant physical limitations.” This evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566, 567 [2005]; *Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth.,*16 AD3d 45 [2005]). Moreover, the plaintiff adequately explained the three-year gap in time between the cessation of her medical treatments and the re-examination by her treating physician *(see Pommells v Perez, supra).*

Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Adams, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
      10.6

    


    Schedule
      identifying material details of Restricted Stock Agreement substantially
      identical to the Agreement filed in Exhibit 10.5 (as filed
      herewith)

    


    


    Restricted
      Stock Purchase Agreement dated June 1, 2006 by and between Velcera
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Antonio M. Benitz; with respect to 100,000 shares
      of
      the Company’s common stock.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:See Attachment.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
       
<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                      SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                                 940434
<SECURITIES>                                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                0
<INVENTORY>                                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                            0
<PP&E>                                                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                         940434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                       0
<BONDS>                                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                                             864431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                           940434
<SALES>                                                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                        39017
<CGS>                                                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       102995
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                       (63978)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                   (63978)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                          (63978)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                          (0.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                               0
        

</TABLE>
§ 26.6694-2 Penalties for understatement due to an unreasonable position. ( a ) *In general.* A person who is a tax return preparer of any return or claim for refund of generation-skipping transfer tax under chapter 13 of subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) shall be subject to penalties under section 6694(a) of the Code in the manner stated in § 1.6694-2 of this chapter.
( b ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section is applicable to returns and claims for refund filed, and advice provided, after December 31, 2008.
[T.D. 9436, 73 FR 78453, Dec. 22, 2008]
Order issued JAM - 5 , 2.000

In The

Court af Appeals

Jftftlj WxBttxtt of teas at Dallas

No. 05-96-01989-CR

PATRICK DEON HOWARD, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

ORDER

The motion ofthe Attorney General of Texas to withdraw the record is GRANTED.

The Clerkof this Courtis ORDERED to send the appellate record in the abovenumbered cause to:

Charles A. Plamer, Assistant Attorney General

c/o John Davilia, Records Clerk

Price Daniel, Sr. Bldg.

P.O.Box 12548, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Charles A. Palmer, Assistant Attorney General, is ORDERED to return the appellaterecord in

the above-numbered cause to this Court within sixty days ofthe dateofUhis Order.

)A THOMAj

CHIEF JUSTICE
39316.

#### KENNEDY v. SCHULTZ.

Decided February 27, 1962

Rehearing denied March 12, 1962.

*523*Heyman, Abram, Young, Hicks & Maloof, Joseph Lefkoff,*for plaintiff in error.

*George Carroll,*contra.

Jordan, Judge.

In a suit by an individual on an unpaid note executed by the defendant and payable to the individual plaintiff, the defendant debtor cannot set off a claim due the defendant by a partnership of which the plaintiff is a member in the absence of special circumstances which would authorize an equitable set-off. *West v. Kendrick,*46 Ga. 526; *Metcalf v. Peoples Grocery Co.,*24 Ga. App. 663 (la) (101 SE 768). While it was alleged in the defendant’s plea and answer that the plaintiff and the partnership were indebted to him in the amount of the set-off, the employment contract which was attached as an exhibit to the defendant’s pleadings, and which was the basis of the alleged claim, disclosed that the alleged set-off was the obligation of the partnership and not of the plaintiff individually. Accordingly, since allegations in pleadings must yield to contradictory facts shown in the exhibits attached thereto *(Harris v. Ackerman,*88 Ga. App. 128, 76 SE2d 132), it affirmatively appears from the pleadings that the defendant was attempting to plead a debt due him by a partnership as a set-off against a debt owed to the plaintiff individually.

Whether or not the allegations of the defendant’s plea and answer were sufficient to show the existence of such a “special equitable circumstance” as would take the case out of the general rule and authorize an equitable set-off, is immaterial to the de*524termination of this case. The Civil Court of Fulton County would have no jurisdiction to entertain a plea setting up an equitable set-off or an equitable right of set-off for the reason that, to entertain such a plea, it is necessary for the court not only to recognize an equitable right but to give affirmative equitable relief as a result of such recognition. *Gormley v. Chance,*55 Ga. App. 838 (191 SE 701); *Hecht v. Snook & Austin Co.,*114 Ga. 921 (41 SE 74); *Fuller v. Coker,*24 Ga. App. 418 (101 SE 1); *Georgia Machinery Co. v. Auburn Machine Works,*103 Ga. App. 574 (120 SE2d 28).

The trial court therefore erred in overruling the general demurrer to the defendant’s plea and answer since the claim asserted therein, irrespective of the question of its merits, could not be set off against the plaintiff in the present action. Such error rendered the subsequent proceedings in the case nugatory.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.*
# L_2019025EN.01001201.xml

| 29.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 25/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 25/12

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2019/132

of 28 January 2019

implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (1), and in particular Article 12 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 4 February 2011 the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 101/2011. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 4 February 2011 the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 101/2011.

| (2) | On the basis of a review of the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, the entry for one person should be removed. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of a review of the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, the entry for one person should be removed.

| (3) | Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 January 2019.

For the Council

The President

P. DAEA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 31, 5.2.2011, p. 1.

1

---

ANNEX

In Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, entry 28 (Mohamed Marwan Ben Ali Ben Mohamed MABROUK) is deleted.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's  unaudited  financial  statements  for the quarter ended April 30,
1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Jul-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      Apr-30-1999
<CASH>                                  1,185
<SECURITIES>                            3,056
<RECEIVABLES>                          18,253
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,331
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         22,862
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      70
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                             22,792
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           22,862
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        1,389
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             427
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           962
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       962
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              962
<EPS-BASIC>                            1.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                            1.73


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

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

Inconnection with the quarterly report of AmericanBiogenetic Sciences, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Richard Rubin, CEO and CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Richard RubinCEO, CFO and Chairman

Dated: August 10, 2010

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Biogenetic Sciences, Inc. and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS

fAppe?

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

COPY

•

4/14/2015 COA Case No. 12-13-00363-CR

Blaylock, Cody Lamont Tr. Ct. No. 114-1070-10 PD-0394-15

On this day, this Court has granted the Appellant's Pro Se motion for an extension

of time in which to file the Petition for Discretionary Review. The time to file the

petition has been extended to June 2, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL

BE ENTERTAINED. NOTE: Petition For Discretionary Review must be filed with

The Court of Criminal Appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *