alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 03-14-00523-CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

GEORGEINE MIKE KOROMPAY

Appellant

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE 

FOR CARRINGTON MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2005-

NC3 ASSET BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES

Appellees

Appeal from the County Court at Law 1 Travis County, Texas

Trial Court No. C-1-CV-14-003847

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

David Rogers

Texas Bar No. 24014089

Law Office of David Rogers 

1201 Spyglass Suite 100

Austin, TX 78746

Firm@DARogersLaw.com

Matthew Wilson

Texas Bar No. 24079588

Telephone: (512) 923-1836

Fax: (512) 201-4082

Fax: (512) 777-5988

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

ACCEPTED

03-14-00523-CV

4922396

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/16/2015 4:03:03 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/16/2015 4:03:03 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
No. 03-14-00523-CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

GEORGEINE MIKE KOROMPAY

Appellant

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE 

FOR CARRINGTON MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2005-

NC3 ASSET BACKED PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES

Appellees

Appeal from the County Court at Law 1 Travis County, Texas

Trial Court No. C-1-CV-14-003847

APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

Comes now Appellant, Georgeine Mike Korompay, and files her motion to 

dismiss her appeal from Travis County Court at Law No. 1. The parties have 

agreed to a confidential settlement and release agreement that disposes of all 

claims in this matter. As such, Appellant no longer wishes to pursue this 

appeal and respectfully moves this court to dismiss her appeal and remove 

this case from the court’s docket. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
_/s/ David Rogers__________

DAVID ROGERS

Texas Bar No. 24014089

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID ROGERS

1201 Spyglass

Suite #100

Austin, TX 78746

Telephone: (512) 923-1836

Facsimile: (512) 777-5988

Email: Firm@DARogersLaw.com

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I hereby certify that on April 15, 2015 all parties finished executing a 

settlement agreement, a condition of which is the filing of this motion. This 

motion is therefore filed as unopposed.

_/s/ David Rogers__________

DAVID ROGERS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing motion was 

served upon counsel of record for Appellee via this court’s ECF system on 

this 16th day of April, 2015.

Chris Ferguson

SBN 24069714

Jack O’Boyle & Associates

P.O.Box 815369

Dallas, TX 75381

(972) 247-0653

(972) 247-0642 [Facsimile]

Chris@jackoboyle.com

_/s/ David Rogers__________

DAVID ROGERS
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 209/2005

of 7 February 2005         

establishing the list of textile products for which no proof of origin is required on release for free circulation in the Community

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1541/98 of 13 July 1998 on proof of origin for certain textile products falling within Section XI of the Combined Nomenclature and released for free circulation in the Community, and on the conditions for the acceptance of such proof (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The release for free circulation of the textile products listed in the Annex to this Regulation shall not be subject to the presentation of any proof of origin.

Article 2

The Regulation (EC) No 2579/98 is repealed.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force seven days following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 7 February 2005.

For the Commission

László KOVÁCS            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 11.

(2)OJ L 322, 1.12.1998, p. 27.

----

ANNEX

LIST OF TEXTILE PRODUCTS

----
41945.

#### STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. ENGLAND.

Submitted April 4, 1966

Decided April 29, 1966.

*Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, E. J. Summerour, Richard L. Chambers,*Assistant Attorneys *General, Thurman E. Duncan, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, William P. Trotter,*for appellant.

*E. W. Fleming,*for appellee.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

1. In the trial of an appeal from an award in condemnation proceedings to acquire a part of condemnee’s tract of land as a right of way for highway purposes, the court instructed the jury: “Now, I charge you, that in estimating the value of the land being taken for public use, it is not restricted to the condition it was in, or the use to which it was applied at the time of the taking, but all of the capabilities of the property and all of the uses to which it may be legitimately applied, or for which it is adequate, are to be considered, if shown by the evidence, and not merely the condition it is in at the time of the taking and the use to which it was then applied by the owner.” There being no evidence that the property had been put to any use other than general agricultural use or had any capabilities for any other purposes, this charge was not authorized by the evidence and was harmful error. *State Hwy. Dept. v. Rutland,*112 Ga. App. 792 (1) (146 SE2d 544); *State Hwy. Dept. v. Whitehurst,*112 Ga. App. 877, 878 (146 SE2d 919).

2. The remaining enumeration of error, complaining of the admission of certain evidence over objection, is without merit.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*
##### 



Exhibit 32(b) 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 Interphase Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven
P. Kovac, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ Steven P. KovacSteven P. KovacChief Financial OfficerAugust 13, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 26, 2010 

s0222 

Order 

 

February 26, 2010 

140126 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140126 

 COA: 293761 

Kent CC: 08-006638-FH 

MARK EDWARD DELMONT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 13, 2009 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**WASHINGTON, DC 20549**

                                         

**FORM 10-Q**

**Commission FileNumber 1-11533**

**Parkway Properties, Inc.**

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

**One Jackson Place Suite 1000**

**188 East Capitol Street**

**P.O. Box 24647**

**Jackson, Mississippi 39225-4647**

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code **(601)948-4091**

Registrant's web site **www.pky.com**

(Former name, formeraddress and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether theregistrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or forsuch shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and(2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

Indicate bycheck mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on itscorporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submittedand posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter)during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrantwas required to submit and post such files). 

Yes o No o*  (*Registrant is not subject to the requirements of Rule 405 of Regulation S-T atthis time.)

Indicate by check mark whether theregistrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-acceleratedfiler, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large acceleratedfiler," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of theExchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate bycheck mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2of the Exchange Act). 

Yes o No þ

21,921,506 shares of Common Stock,$.001 par value, were outstanding at July 30, 2010.

1

----
§ 1.918 Use and disclosure of mailing addresses. ( a ) When attempting to locate a debtor in order to compromise or collect a debt in accordance with §§ 1.900 through 1.953, VA may send a request to the Secretary of the Treasury, or his/her designee, in order to obtain the debtor's most current mailing address from the records of the Internal Revenue Service.
( b ) VA is authorized to use mailing addresses obtained under paragraph (a) of this section to enforce collection of a delinquent debt and may disclose such mailing addresses to other agencies and to collection agencies for collection purposes.
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3711; 38 U.S.C. 501)
[52 FR 42108, Nov. 3, 1987. Redesignated and amended at 69 FR 62196, Oct. 25, 2004]
#### §§ 17.3106-17.3119 [Reserved]
<PAGE>


                                                                   Exhibit 99.1


       Certification Of Periodic Financial Report Pursuant to Section 906
            of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Capital Institutional
Real Estate, Ltd.-1 (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), each of Douglas Crocker, as President and Chief Executive
Officer of First Capital Financial, L.L.C., the Managing General Partner of the
Partnership (the "Managing General Partner"), and Philip Tinkler, as Vice
President - Finance of the Managing General Partner, hereby 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 result of operations of the
Partnership.

/s/ Douglas Crocker
------------------------
Douglas Crocker
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2002


/s/ Philip Tinkler
------------------------
Philip Tinkler
Vice President - Finance
August 12, 2002
#### The American Brass and Copper Co., Respondent, *v.*Robert H. Ingersoll et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, rendered in the Municipal Court of the City of Eew York, borough of Manhattan, for the second district.

'H. B. Kinghom, for appellants.

George A. Baker, for respondent.

Leventritt, J.

The defendants placed an order-with the plaintiff for “25 gro. Spring Brass Toe Clips,” of which ten gross were to be shipped at once and the balance as required. In fulfillment of the first installment of ten gross, 1,440 toe-clips were delivered to the defendants, who made payment therefor without objection.

The remainder having been subsequently sent, and having been received and retained by the defendants, this action was brought to recover the purchase price. The sole issue litigated was how many toe clips -were required to fill the order. The. defendants claimed that by the usa^e of the trade and the understanding of .the parties “25 gro.” meant twenty-five gross pair, and that the plaintiff having delivered only single toe clips, that is 144 to each gross, but half the quantity contracted for had been received.- The justice adopted the plaintiff’s construction that the agreement contemplated. single toe clips. This was warranted by .the oral, and *784written evidence introduced on the trial. The unequivocal language of the Order, containing no; reference to pairs, opposes .the defendants’ contention. Moreover,'their own. catalogue,- which was produced on the trial, is inconsistent with their position. They maintained that .toe clips were"-invariably sold by the pair. Yet in their Own catalogue, toe clips áre not quoted by the pair, notwithstanding the testimony of One Of the defendants .that every article sold by the pair was therein so quoted.^ 1 ;

Finally, the defendants recognised the plaintiff’s theory" Of the contract by-accepting 1,440-toe clips'as the equivalent of the first ten gross.

It is true they sought to overcome the presumption arising from their acquiescence,, by ascribing the acceptance and the consequent payment to the oversight of an employee. The inconclusive testimony offered to support-this, explanation failed to convince the justice. The exceptions urged are trivial and the issue of fact •having "been determined with fairness, - the judgment- should-, n&t be disturbed.- • ••

Freedman, B. W, and MacFeán, Jv concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondent.
** **

** **

**EXHIBIT32.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ParkwayProperties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I, Steven G. Rogers, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 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 ofthe Company.

                                                                                                                /s/Steven G. Rogers                                                            

                                                                                                                StevenG. Rogers (*) 

                                                                                                                President,Chief Executive Officer and Director 

                                                                                                                May10, 2010

*    A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toParkway Properties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 March 15 , 2019

Order 

Clerk

March 15, 2019

158983(41)

JEREMY HOOKER,

Appellee,

v SC: 158983

COA: 343334

BRENDA M. MOORE,

Appellant.

______________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Association of County 

Drain Commissioners, the Michigan Association of Counties, and the Michigan Townships 

Association to file a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on 

March 14, 2019, is accepted for filing.
41854.

#### CARTER v. A. JACK HUGHES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Jordan, Judge.

This was a suit to recover the full contract price paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for the construction of a fallout shelter. On the trial of the case before *467the court without a jury, the plaintiff testified that after the shelter had been completed and full payment made to the defendant, water began to accumulate therein; that the defendant in spite of repeated demands refused to correct the situation; and that because of the accumulation of water, the shelter was wholly unfit for the use intended and there had been a total failure of consideration. The defendant contractor testified that the plaintiff had made only two complaints concerning the shelter, first about an accumulation of water and later about a sticky door; that on each occasion workmen were sent to investigate and correct the condition complained of; and that thereafter no further complaints ■ were received but that the plaintiff did subsequently inquire as to the feasibility and estimated cost of removing the shelter to another location. The evidence showed that the plaintiff did not own the land upon which the shelter was constructed and that prior to the institution of this suit, he moved away from the premises. The contract did not contain a guarantee that the shelter would be moisture-proof.

Submitted March 9, 1966

Decided April 5, 1966.

*Alvin N. Siegel, Larry D. Lewis,*for appellant.

*John C. Lee, Stone & Stone, Hugh W. Stone,*for appellee.

The trial court entered judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff has appealed to this court on the ground that the judgment was without evidence to support it. *Held:*

While the evidence was conflicting in some particulars, a verdict for the defendant was fully authorized by the evidence; and the trial court, sitting as the trior of both law and fact, did not err in entering judgment in his favor. *Porter v. Wilder & Son,*62 Ga. 520 (5).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,361
<SECURITIES>                                     1,492
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,074
<ALLOWANCES>                                       411
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,305
<PP&E>                                           9,702
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,576
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,899
<BONDS>                                          1,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,335
<SALES>                                          1,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,138
<CGS>                                              269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,879
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  40
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,674)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        20
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,694)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,694)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
Home2015 Treaties and Agreements...Netherlands (15-901) – Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding on Defense Technology Research and Development Projects, as Amended

# 									Netherlands (15-901) – Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding on Defense Technology Research and Development Projects, as Amended							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

September 1, 2015

Defense:  Research and Development

Agreement signed at Washington and The Hague July 14 and September 1, 2015; entered into force September 1, 2015.

Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding signed May 14, 1998 and September 26, 2007:TIAS 98-514.  Memorandum of Understanding previously extended February 5, 2013:TIAS 13-205.
Download attachment						 [652 KB]

Tags

DefenseDevelopmentNetherlandsResearchTreaties

Back to Top
#### § 12.12 Miscellaneous provisions.

If it is shown that some person other than the veteran has title to property in a veteran's possession at the time of death, nothing contained in §§ 12.0 to 12.12 shall be construed as prohibiting delivery of such property to the owner. A life insurance policy may be delivered to the beneficiary therein named if the insured is deceased, notwithstanding the veteran has designated a person to whom possession of his or her property at the field facility is to be transferred. In no case will funds or effects be delivered to a minor, or to an incompetent person other than as provided in § 12.9 (a) and (c), but where any such person is entitled to title or possession delivery may be made to his or her guardian.

[13 FR 7130, Nov. 27, 1948]