alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Catherine Lenehan, Appellant, *v.*The Hamilton Storage & Warehouse Co., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Eew York, ninth district, borough of Manhattan.

Joseph Berheld, for appellant.

Benjamin Baker, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The plaintiff’s case depends entirely upon her, uncorroborated testimony, which it is evident the jury did not believe. The plaintiff’s story is of such a nature that we cannot say that the jury was not warranted in not believing it. It is evident that the jury believed that the plaintiff received from the defendant all the goods that she had delivered to the defendant.

There were no errors made on the trial by the learned trial justice that call for a reversal of the judgment.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugbo, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Research
Frontiers Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph
M. Harary, President, Treasurer and Principal Accounting 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, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Joseph M. Harary
    Joseph M. Harary
    President, Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer
    May 9, 2007
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 42.25 Default filing times.

(a) A motion may only be filed according to a schedule set by the Board. The default times for acting are:

(1) An opposition is due one month after service of the motion; and

(2) A reply is due one month after service of the opposition.

(b) A party should seek relief promptly after the need for relief is identified. Delay in seeking relief may justify a denial of relief sought.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2513 

To require advertising for any automobile model to display information regarding the fuel consumption and fuel cost for that model, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2007 

Mr. HALL of New York (for himself and Mr. WELCH of Vermont) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

A BILL 

To require advertising for any automobile model to display 

information regarding the fuel consumption and fuel cost 

for that model, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FUEL CONSUMPTION INFORMATION IN ADVER4 TISING FOR AUTOMOBILES. 

5 (a) NOTICE REQUIREMENT.—Within 1 month after 

6 the date of enactment of this Act, any advertisement for 

7 any model of automobile or light duty truck (as defined 

8 by rule by the Administrator of the Environmental Protec9 tion Agency) shall include within such advertisement the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2513 IH

1 Environmental Protection Agency’s Combined Miles Per 

2 Gallon Rating, City Miles Per Gallon Rating, Highway 

3 Miles Per Gallon Rating MPG, and Estimated Annual 

4 Fuel Cost Rating for that model. 

5 (b) ENFORCEMENT.—A violation of subsection (a) 

6 shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair 

7 or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 

8 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 

9 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission 

10 shall enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same 

11 means, and with the same jurisdiction as though all appli12 cable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commis13 sion Act were incorporated into and made a part of this 

14 Act. 

15 (c) DEFINITION OF ADVERTISEMENT.—As used in 

16 this Act, the term ‘‘advertisement’’ includes any advertise17 ment broadcast on network television, cable television, or 

18 radio, and any advertisement placed on the Internet or 

19 in any newspaper or magazine. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 6080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2325]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6508]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Brucke: The Birth of Expressionism, 1905-1913''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects in 
the exhibition: ``Brucke: The Birth of Expressionism, 1905-1913,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Neue Galerie, 
New York, NY, from on or about February 26, 2009, until on or about 
June 29, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to 
be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: January 26, 2009.
C. Miller Crouch,
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. E9-2325 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
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

RBD INVESTMENT TRUST, MS 

INVESTMENT TRUST, RON 

DAVIS, AND MIKE WOLFINGTON

Appellants,

v.

Case No. 5D22-2351

LT Case No. 2017-CA-55151 

BABCOCK COQUINA MINE, LLC, AND

JEFFERY W. WELLS 

Appellees. 

________________________________/

Decision filed August 1, 2023

Appeal from Circuit Court 

for Brevard County, 

George Paulk, Judge. 

Thomas C. Allison, of Thomas C. Allison, 

P.A., Winter Park, and Robin F. Hazel, of

Hazel Law P.A., Hollywood, for Appellants.

Howard Poznanski, Coconut Creek, 

for Appellees. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

MAKAR, JAY and SOUD, JJ., concur.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2534 

To permit statues honoring citizens of the District of Columbia to be placed 

in Statuary Hall in the same manner as statues honoring citizens of 

the States are placed in Statuary Hall, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2007 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To permit statues honoring citizens of the District of Columbia to be placed in Statuary Hall in the same manner 

as statues honoring citizens of the States are placed 

in Statuary Hall, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PLACEMENT OF STATUES OF CITIZENS OF DIS4 TRICT OF COLUMBIA IN STATUARY HALL. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1814 of the Revised Stat6 utes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 2131) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘For purVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:06 May 30, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2534.IH H2534

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 2534 IH

1 poses of this section, the term ‘State’ shall include the Dis2 trict of Columbia.’’. 

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT REGARDING PROCE4 DURES FOR REPLACEMENT OF STATUES.—Section 311 of 

5 the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 

6 U.S.C. 2132), is amended by adding at the end the fol7 lowing new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(f) For purposes of this section— 

9 ‘‘(1) the term ‘State’ shall include the District 

10 of Columbia; and 

11 ‘‘(2) in the case of the District of Columbia, the 

12 Council of the District of Columbia shall be treated 

13 as the legislature and the Mayor of the District of 

14 Columbia shall be treated as the Governor.’’. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 501/2005

of 31 March 2005         

fixing the production refund on white sugar used in the chemical industry for the period from 1 to 30 April 2005         

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the fifth indent of Article 7(5) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The production refund on white sugar referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1265/2001 shall be equal to 33,012 EUR/100 kg net for the period from 1 to 30 April 2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 April 2005.

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

Done at Brussels, 31 March 2005.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

(2)OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 63.

----
#### § 48.645 Federal agency or agency.

*Federal agency or agency* means any United States executive department, military department, government corporation, government controlled corporation, any other establishment in the executive branch (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.
#### § 40.5 Federal interagency coordination.

The Secretary, to the extent practicable, consults with and seeks advice from all other substantially affected Federal departments and agencies in an effort to assure full coordination between such agencies and VA regarding programs and activities covered under these regulations.

(Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4231(b))
§ 21.3302 Special restorative training agreements and reports. ( a ) *Agreements to provide training.* The Department of Veterans Affairs may make agreements with public or private educational institutions or others to provide suitable and necessary special restorative training for an eligible person.
( b ) *Tuition charge.* When a customary tuition charge is not applicable, the agreement will include the fair and reasonable amounts charged for the training provided to the eligible person.
( c ) *Reports.* Each educational institution or other provider of a course of special restorative training must report promptly the eligible person's enrollment in, interruption of, or termination of the course of special restorative training.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 3543, 3680, 3684)
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection provisions in this section under control numbers 2900-0014, 2900-0073, and 2900-0156) [48 FR 37973, Aug. 22, 1983, as amended at 73 FR 2425, Jan. 15, 2008]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          12,841
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  169,587
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    177,740
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               373,809
<PP&E>                                         414,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                 175,557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,132,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          153,478
<BONDS>                                        368,396
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,001
<OTHER-SE>                                     339,579
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,132,000
<SALES>                                        186,078
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               186,078
<CGS>                                           97,042
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   97,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,097
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,860
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,027
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,662
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,365
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,365
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33


</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000
                       
<S>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    September-30-1997
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<CASH>                          11,465
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                   28,675
<ALLOWANCES>                       400
<INVENTORY>                     25,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                69,431
<PP&E>                          50,158
<DEPRECIATION>                  23,663
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  97,268 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           22,208
<BONDS>                              0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                           592
<OTHER-SE>                      68,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    97,268
<SALES>                        132,786
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  102,213
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                19,115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 11,476
<INCOME-TAX>                     3,869
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              7,607
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                     7,607
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .83
        

</TABLE>
41703.

#### THORNTON v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY OF SOUTH GEORGIA, INC.

Jordan, Judge.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court. In *Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Thornton,*111 Ga. App. 636 (142 SE2d 422), decided May 3, 1965, the judgment of the Superior Court of Pierce County overruling the defendant’s traverse to the entry of service was reversed; and on May 28, 1965, the trial court entered an order making the remittitur from this court the judgment of the trial court and dismissing the plaintiff’s petition for lack of service. No exception was taken to this judgment by the plaintiff. However, on August 16, 1965, the first day of the August term of Pierce Superior Court (that being the term next following the May term of court), the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to have the court set aside its order of May 28, 1965, dismissing the petition, and to allow the plaintiff to perfect belated service on the defendant. The defendant filed a general demurrer to this motion which was sustained and the appeal is from that judgment. *Held:*

This court will take judicial notice of the fact that the May term of Pierce Superior Court commenced on the first Monday in May and that it continued by operation of law until five days before the commencement of the following August term of court on the third Monday in August, unless sooner adjourned by order of the presiding judge. *Dover v. Dover,*205 Ga. 241 (53 SE2d 492); *Shivers v. Shivers,*206 Ga. 552 (1) (57 SE2d 660); *Code*§ 24-3010'. Accordingly, in the absence of an allegation that the May term of court was adjourned by order of court prior to May 28, 1965, it must be presumed that the order of May 28, 1965, was entered during the May term; therefore it was not error for the trial court to sustain the defendant’s general demurrer to the plaintiff’s motion filed at the following August term of court, “Which sought at a subsequent term to set aside the judgment of that court on the remittitur from this court.” *Wills v. Manning,*195 Ga. 336 (2) (24 SE2d 194). Contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, the allegations that the order of May 28, 1965, had been entered by the court at chambers in another county in the circuit would not show that the current May term of Pierce Superior Court had been ad- . journed prior to that date. *Adams v. Seay,*62 Ga. App. *44589 (1) (9 SE2d 117); *Morgan v. Western Auto Supply Co.,*102 Ga. App. 648 (2), 651 (117 SE2d 253).

Argued January 10, 1966

Decided January 26, 1966.

*Albert E. Butler,*for appellant.

*Bennett, Pedrick •& Bennett, J. Edmund Pedrick, Wilson G. Pedrick,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.*
Exhibit 10.7.1


 


AMENDMENT ONE

TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

DATED DECEMBER 31, 1998

BETWEEN STUART R. LLOYD AND

PERFORMANCE ENGINEERING CORPORATION


 


The Agreement is hereby modified as follows:


 


Paragraph 5, subparagraph (b): delete the second paragraph of subparagraph
(b) and insert the following:


 


“If Lloyd leaves his employment as a result of PEC’s breach of this
Agreement, or if PEC terminates Lloyd’s employment in breach of this Agreement,
or if Lloyd’s employment terminates for Good Reason as a result of a Change in
Control, both as defined under Paragraph 6, below, Lloyd shall be under no
restriction whatsoever as to the nature of the business or employment
activities in which he may engage after termination of his employment.”


 


Paragraph 5, subparagraph (d): add the following to the end of the
subparagraph:


 


“In addition, if Lloyd’s employment terminates for Good Reason as a
result of a Change in Control, both as defined under Paragraph 6, below, Lloyd
shall not receive a  lump sum payment
but shall instead receive payments on an equal monthly basis for the term of
the period covered.”


 


Both parties being in accord, and in consideration of Lloyd’s continued
employment and the other mutual covenants and obligations as first set forth in
the Agreement, the parties have hereto set their hands this 30th day
of September, 2003:


 


	
  /s/ STUART R. LLOYD

  	
   

  	
  /S/ DAVID C. KARLGAARD

  	
   

  
	
  Stuart R. Lloyd

  	
   

  	
  PEC Solutions, Inc. (Successor in Interest to Performance Engineering

  Corporation)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By: David C. Karlgaard

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ SHARON M. OWLETT

  	
   

  	
  /s/ SHARON M. OWLETT

  	
   

  
	
  Witness

  	
  Witness
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 11-703 

________________________________________________________________________ 

NUCLEAR SAFETY 

 Arrangement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ISRAEL 

Signed at Rockville and Tel Aviv 

May 22 and July 3, 2011 

with 

Addenda 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
ISRAEL 

Nuclear Safety 

 Arrangement signed at Rockville and Tel Aviv 

 May 22 and July 3, 2011; 

 Entered into force July 3, 2011. 

 With addenda.
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 11-114 

________________________________________________________________________ 

WEAPONS 

Proliferation 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and ARMENIA 

Signed at Washington and Yerevan 

September 3 and 16, 2010 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
ARMENIA 

Weapons: Proliferation 

 Agreement signed at Washington and Yerevan 

 September 3 and 16, 2010; 

 Entered into force January 14, 2011.