alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GRANITE BITUMINOUS PAVING COMPANY, Respondent, v. PARKVIEW REALTY & IMPROVEMENT COMPANY et al., Appellants.

No. 12561.

St. Louis Court of Appeals,

December 3, 1912.

Granite Bituminous Paving Company v. Parkview Realty and Improvement Company et al. (No. 12563), *ante,*followed.

NORTONI, J., dissents.

Appeal from St. Lonis Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *Eugene McQuillin,*Judge.

Judgment modieied and aeeirmed and cause remanded *(with directions).*

Cause certified to Supreme Court.

*Bland S Gave*and *Garter, Collins, Jones & Barker*for appellants.

*Sturdevant é Sturdevant*and *Charles W. Bates*for respondent.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

R. E. ROMBAUER, Special Judge.

The record in this cause is identical with, the one in 12,563, except the amount sued for and the property sought to be charged with the lien of the special taxbill.

It is therefore ordered that the motion for rehearing be sustained, that the record entry of the judgment be amended, as is ordered to be done in cause 12,563, and as thus amended be affirmed, and that the cause be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In this disposition of the case *Reynolds, P. J.,*concurs. *Caulfield, J.,*not sitting. *Nortoni, J.,*dissents for the reason stated in his dissenting opinion in cause No. 12,563. The cause is therefore certified to the Supreme Court for final determination.

*495DISSENTING OPINION.

NORTONI, J.

As the judgment of the court in this case involves the identical question and determines it in the same way as that involved in the case of Granite Bituminous Paving Company v. Parkview Realty & Improvement Company et al., (No. 12,563), between the same parties and decided today (168 Mo. App. 468, 151 S. W. 479), I respectfully dissent therefrom for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion filed in the case last mentioned. I deem the judgment of the court in this case to be in conflict with the judgment of the Kansas City Court of Appeals in the case of Forrey v. Holmes, 65 Mo. App'. 114 and also with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Morey Engineering & Construction Co. v. St. Louis Artificial Ice Rink Co., 242 Mo. 241, 146 S. W. 1142. and therefore request that the cause be certified to the .Supreme Court for final determination, as provided in the Constitution.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Robert F.X.Sillerman, certify that:

(1)             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CKX, Inc.

(2)             Basedon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;

(3)             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

(4)             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)            Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such controls and proceduresto be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and

(c)            Disclosedin this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a)            Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the  registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)           Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the  registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
| Date: May 9, 2006           |   |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|--------|
| ** **                       |   |   |
| **/s/ ROBERT F.X. SILLERMAN**    |   |   |
| Robert F.X.  Sillerman           |   |   |
| *Chief  Executive Officer and*   |   |   |
| *Chairman  of the Board*         |   |   |
| *(Principal  Executive Officer)* |   |   |

 

 

----
<PAGE>



                                                                     Exhibit 2.2


                           ALLONGE TO PROMISSORY NOTE

     THIS ALLONGE, effective this 31st day of December, 2001, is to be part of
and attached to the Promissory Note of BERNARD CHAUS, INC., a New York
corporation (the "Maker") to GMAC COMMERCIAL CREDIT LLC (the "Payee"), dated
October 10, 1997 in the original principal amount of $15,000,000 (the "Note").

     Effective as of the date of this Allonge, the first sentence of the Note is
     revised as follows:

     "FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned BERNARD CHAUS, INC. (the "Maker")
     hereby promises to pay to the order of GMAC COMMERCIAL CREDIT LLC (the
     "Payee"), at 1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10104 or at
     such other place as may be designated in writing by the holder hereof, the
     principal sum of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000), in lawful money of
     the United States of America, in twenty (20) consecutive, equal quarterly
     installments, each in the amount of $250,000.00, commencing on March 31,
     1998 and on the last day of each fiscal quarter thereafter and one final
     installment on April 1, 2003 in the amount of the then outstanding
     principal balance."

     This Allonge shall be deemed to amend and modify the Note, to the extent
inconsistent with the Note. Subject to the foregoing, the Note and all of its
terms and conditions are ratified and reaffirmed and remain in full force and
effect.

     Effective as of April 30, 2002.


                                     BERNARD CHAUS, INC.

                                     By: /s/ Nicholas DiPaolo
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Title: Vice Chairman of the Board, and
                                               Chief Operating Officer

ATTEST:

/s/ Barton Heminover
-------------------------------
Secretary

[CORPORATE SEAL]

Accepted and Agreed:

GMAC COMMERCIAL CREDIT LLC

By: /s/ John H. McGowan
   ----------------------------
Title: Vice President
# C_2023261EN.01000101.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2023/C 261/01)

Last publication

OJ C 252, 17.7.2023

Past publications

OJ C 235, 3.7.2023

OJ C 223, 26.6.2023

OJ C 216, 19.6.2023

OJ C 205, 12.6.2023

OJ C 189, 30.5.2023

OJ C 173, 15.5.2023

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2744 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2744

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 514 17th Street in Moline, Illinois, as the ``David Bybee Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2003

  Mr. Evans (for himself, Mr. Rush, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. 
Emanuel, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Weller, Mr. Costello, Mr. 
Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Jackson 
 of Illinois, and Ms. Schakowsky) introduced the following bill; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 514 17th Street in Moline, Illinois, as the ``David Bybee Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DAVID BYBEE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 514 17th Street in Moline, Illinois, shall be known and 
designated as the ``David Bybee Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the David Bybee 
Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6822

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LOFTON HOWARD LAMBERT, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. James C. Turk, District

Judge. (CR-93-5, CA-96-867-R)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 27, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Margaret McLeod Cain, MARGARET MCLEOD CAIN, P.C., Charlottesville,

Virginia, for Appellant. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Lambert, Nos. CR-93-5; CA-96-867-R (W.D. Va. May

18, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 31.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


I, Dawn M. Schlegel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of DHB Industries, Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  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 annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  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 annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange  Act Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14)  for the  registrant  and we have:  a)
designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  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  annual  report  is being  prepared;  b)  evaluated  the
effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and procedures as of a
date  within  90 days  prior  to the  filing  date of this  annual  report  (the
"Evaluation Date"); and c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about
the  effectiveness  of the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
         controls  which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
         record,   process,   summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have
         identified  for the  registrant's  auditors any material  weaknesses in
         internal  controls;  and

         b) any fraud,  whether or not  material,  that involves  management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date: March 30, 2004

/s/ DAWN M. SCHLEGEL
_______________________
Dawn M. Schlegel
Chief Financial Officer
#### CITY OF TULSA v. LYNCH et al.

No. 30950.

May 18, 1943.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 28, 1943.

Application for Leave to File Second Petition for Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1944.

*145 P. 2d 202.*

E. M. Gallaher, L. A. Justus, Philip J. Kramer, and C. Lawrence Elder, all of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Eldon J. Dick and Lou Etta Bellamy, both of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, J.

This case is in all essential respects identical with cause No. 30727, City of Tulsa v. Emmett Johnson et al., 193 Okla. 501, 145 P. 2d 198, this day decided. The disposition of the cause in the trial court corresponds to the disposition made by the trial court in cause No. 30727, supra, except that the money judgment was for a different amount. The issues presented to this court are the sa'me except that no cross-petition has been filed by the defendant in error, a distinction which is immaterial.

Our decision in cause No. 30727, supra, determines the issues in this appeal, and the opinion and syllabus in that case is adopted as the opinion and syllabus in this case.

This cause is therefore reversed, with directions to enter judgment in favor of the defendant city.

CORN, C. J., GIBSON, V. C. J., and OSBORN, BAYLESS, WELCH, HURST, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. RILEY, J., dissents.
From: Vasu, Amy
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 4:12 PM

To: Frey, Nathan J.
Cc: Hoffman, Howard; Culligan, Kevin; Schmidt, Lorie; Szabo, Aaron Subject: Clarification regarding response to interagency question on Section V.B.3 of the Clean Power Plan preamble

Nathan.

Below is a clarification regarding the subsections that were revised.

[Note for reviewers: This piece has revisions to section 111(d) preamble section V.B.3.a (adds new material), V.B.3.b(1) (deletes some paragraphs) and V.B.3.(b)(c)(9) (adds new material; adds the paragraphs deleted from V.B.3.(b)(1), with edits; and makes additional edits). Please note that V.B.3.(c)(9) is incorrectly numbered – the correct numbering is V.B.3.(c)( 8 ).]

Thank you.

Amy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Amy B. Vasu U.S. EPA / OAQPS Sector Policies and Programs Division email: vasu.amy@epa.gov phone: 919.541.0107
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Sanctioning Hizballah Financiers in Lebanon

# 									Sanctioning Hizballah Financiers in Lebanon							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

January 18, 2022

The United States is designating three Hizballah-linked financial facilitators and their Lebanon-based travel company. We are taking this action in solidarity with the Lebanese people, whose security and sovereignty remains threatened by Hizballah’s corrupt and destabilizing activities.

Individuals Adel Diab, Ali Mohamad Daoun, and Jihad Salem Alame, and business Dar Al Salam for Travel & Tourism were designated under Executive Order 13224, as amended, which targets terrorists, leaders, and officials of terrorist groups, and those providing support to terrorists or acts of terrorism.

As the Lebanese people suffer an economic crisis of historic proportions, Hizballah continues to engage in illicit activity and amass wealth at the expense of the Lebanese people. It is clear Hizballah and its associates are more concerned with advancing their own interests and those of their patron, Iran, than the best interests of the Lebanese people. For more information on today’s action, please see the Department of the Treasury’s press release.

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsCounterterrorismDivision for Counter Threat Finance and SanctionsLebanonOffice of the SpokespersonSanctionsThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
#### § 1008.205 The Bureau's establishment of nationwide mortgage licensing system and registry.

If the Bureau determines that the NMLSR established by CSBS and AARMR does not meet the minimum requirements of subpart D of this part, the Bureau will establish and maintain a nationwide mortgage licensing system and registry.
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2831 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 20, 2004 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey the 

Newlands Project Headquarters and Maintenance Yard 

Facility to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 2831 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Newlands Project 

3 Headquarters and Maintenance Yard Facility Transfer 

4 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF NEWLANDS PROJECT HEAD6 QUARTERS AND MAINTENANCE YARD FACIL7 ITY. 

8 (a) CONVEYANCE.—The Secretary of the Interior 

9 shall convey to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, 

10 Nevada, as soon as practicable after the date of the enact11 ment of this Act and in accordance with all applicable law 

12 and the terms of the memorandum of agreement between 

13 the District and the Secretary dated June 9, 2003 (Con14 tract No. 3–LC–20–8052), all right, title, and interest of 

15 the United States in and to real property within the 

16 Newlands Projects, Nevada, known as 2666 Harrigan 

17 Road, Fallon, Nevada, and identified for disposition on the 

18 map entitled ‘‘Newlands Project Headquarters and Main19 tenance Yard Facility’’. 

20 (b) TREATMENT OF PROCEEDS FROM FALLON

21 FREIGHT YARD AS CONSIDERATION.—Notwithstanding 

22 any other provision of law to the contrary, amounts re23 ceived by the United States for the lease and sale of 

24 Newlands Project lands comprising the Fallon Freight 

25 Yard shall, for purposes of this section, be treated as pay-
3 

HR 2831 RFS 

1 ment in full of consideration for the property conveyed 

2 under subsection (a). 

3 (c) REPORT.—If the Secretary has not completed 

4 such conveyance within 12 months after the date of enact5 ment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to 

6 the Congress explaining the reasons the conveyance has 

7 not been completed and stating the date by which the con8 veyance will be completed. 

9 (d) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, REMEDIATION, AND

10 REMOVAL.—The Secretary may not make any conveyance 

11 under this section until the completion with respect to the 

12 conveyance, in accordance with the memorandum of agree13 ment referred to in subsection (a), of— 

14 (1) compliance with requirements relating to 

15 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

16 U.S.C. et seq. 4321 et seq.) and cultural resources; 

17 and 

18 (2) environmental site assessments, remedi19 ation, or removal. 

20 (e) LIABILITY.—The United States shall not be liable 

21 for damages of any kind arising out of any act or omission 

22 by, or occurrence relating to, the Truckee-Carson Irriga23 tion District or its employees, agents, or contractors relat-
4 

HR 2831 RFS 

1 ing to the property conveyed under this section and occur2 ring prior to, on, or after the date of such conveyance. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
#### Samuel Wolchock, Appellant, *v.*Giovanni Tombarelli, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

November, 1900.)

Municipal Court of the city of New York — Form of order opening default and setting aside judgment.

An order, vacating absolutely a judgment taken against the plaintiff by default and which does not set the case down for pleading, hearing or trial, is unauthorized in the Municipal Court of the city of New York.

Appeal from an order of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Manhattan.

*695M. M. Greenstein, for appellant.

E. McKinley, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The order appealed from, which vacated and set aside a judgment against the plaintiff absolutely, omitted to set the case down for pleading, hearing or trial. Such an order is unauthorized in the Municipal Court. Gormully & Jeffery Mfg. Co. v. Catharine, 25 Misc. Rep. 338. The reason given by the justice for making the order, to-wit, that the defendant was not a resident of the county, is not sufficient. Worthington v. London, etc., Company, 164 N. Y. 81.

The order appealed from must be reversed, with ten dollars costs to appellant.

Present: Truax, P. J.; Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs to appellant.