alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John G. Shannon, Plaintiff, *v.*Thomas E. Horley, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, New York Trial Term,

October, 1900.)

Consideration — Exchange of checks.

Where A. gives his checks to B. in return for the check of C. held by B., there is a valid exchange of property made upon mutual promises, and, therefore, the subsequent failure of C. to pay his check to A. cannot prejudice the right of B.’s assignee to recover of A. upon his checks.

Action by the plaintiff, as assignee, after maturity of two checks made by the defendant and given to the payee in exchange for the check of a third person. The defendant pleaded that there was no consideration, for the checks in suit, because the check given, in exchange to the defendant was not paid.

Sumerwell, Shoup & Vermilya, for plaintiff.

Byron Travor, for defendant.

McAdam, J.

It is elementary that one promise is a legal consideration for another. If a promissory note is made by A. to B. in exchange for a promissory note made by B. to A., each note is a valid consideration for the other, whether between the original parties or in an action by an indorsee. It is in the nature of an exchange of property, each party getting title to the property received in exchange. Newman v. Frost, 52 N. Y. 422; Rice v. Grange, 131 id. 149; State Bank v. Smith, 155 id. 185; Backus v. Spaulding, 116 Mass. 418; 4 Am. *&*Eng. Ency. of Law (2d ed.), 188; Edwards Bills, 322; Chitty Bills (10th Am. ed.), 708; Daniels Neg. Inst., § 187; Wooster v. Jenkins, 3 Den. 187; Dowe v. Schutt, 2 id. 621. If both notes are due, and each remains in the hands of its payee, the one may doubtless be set off against the other. But the two contracts, though mutual, are independent, and if they are for the payment of money at different times, each must be performed according to its terms. Backus v. Spaulding, *supra.*In Wooster v. Jenkins, supra, the court said: “It is. *624urged that as between the original parties, cross-notes or acceptances should he regarded as accommodation, in contradistinction to business securities. But the rule is settled the other way. Each party may prove the debt against the other under a commission of bankruptcy. And although one party sells the note or bill at a greater discount than seven per centum, the purchaser will acquire a good title. It is true that so long as the securities are in the Lands of the original parties, they will balance each other. But it will be by way of set-off; and not on the ground that they are invalid.” See also Rice v. Grange, *supra.*No set-off is pleaded here. The application of these rules to the present controversy entitles the plaintiff to judgment for $910, with interest.

Judgment for plaintiff.
Editorial Note on Part 225
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 225 appear at 69 FR 77618, Dec. 28, 2004.

§ 225.300 Authority, purpose, and scope. ( a ) *Authority.* This subpart is issued under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 1, 321-338a, 1467a(g), 1818(b), 1844(b), 1861-1867, and 3101 *et seq.*
( b ) *Purpose.* This subpart promotes the timely notification of computer-security incidents that may materially and adversely affect Board-supervised entities.
( c ) *Scope.* This subpart applies to all U.S. bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies; state member banks; the U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations; and Edge and agreement corporations. This subpart also applies to their bank service providers, as defined in § 225.301(b)(2).
#### § 269b.750 Requests for appearance of witnesses and production of documents.

Parties may request appearance of witnesses and production of documents by filing application therefor, depending upon the stage of the proceedings at which the request is made, with the officer conducting the investigation or hearing, or with the panel. Such application shall name and identify the witnesses or documents sought and shall briefly state the need for such appearance or production. The officer with whom such request is filed shall rule upon each such request and the record of the proceeding shall contain a record of that ruling and the basis therefor. The record shall also contain a statement of reasons for any request for the appearance of witnesses or production of documents initiated by a presiding officer.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.0



                                MICROCOM, INC.
                     CALCULATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
    FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTH PERIODS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND 1994


                                  (Unaudited)


<TABLE>

<CAPTION>
(In thousands, except per share amounts)

                                                                        Three Months Ended        Six Months Ended
                                                                        ------------------        ----------------
                                                                          1995       1994          1995      1994
                                                                         ------     ------        ------     ------
<S>                                                                      <C>        <C>           <C>        <C>
Net income ........................................................      $3,088     $1,385        $5,203     $2,561
                                                                         ======     ======        ======     ======

Reconciliation of average number of shares outstanding to
 amount used in net income per share computation:
  Weighted average number of shares outstanding ...................      15,225     10,720        13,409     10,648
  Assumed exercise of stock options ...............................       1,298        881         1,205        744
                                                                         ------     ------        ------     ------
 Weighted average number of shares outstanding,
   as adjusted ....................................................      16,523     11,601        14,614     11,392
                                                                         ======     ======        ======     ======

Net income per share ..............................................        $.19       $.12          $.36       $.22
                                                                           ====       ====          ====       ====
</TABLE>



                                      11
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C.  20549

 

Form 10-Q

 

(MarkOne)

[X]   QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TOSECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010

 

or

 

[]   TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the transition period from _________to _________

 

Commission file number 0-15675

 

 

DAVIDSON GROWTH PLUS, L.P. 

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089

Greenville, South Carolina  29602

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(864) 239-1000

(Registrant's telephone number)

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to befiled by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during thepreceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was requiredto file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements forthe past 90 days. 

Yes[X] No [ ]

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted onits corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to besubmitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (232.405 of thischapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that theregistrant was required to submit and post such files). [ ] Yes  [ ] No

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, anaccelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reportingcompany.  See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “acceleratedfiler” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicateby check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [ ] No [X]
§ 263.57 Sanctions relating to conduct in an adjudicatory proceeding. ( a ) *General rule.* The ALJ may impose sanctions when any party or person in an adjudicatory proceeding under this part has failed to comply with an applicable statute, regulation, or order, and that failure to comply: ( 1 ) Constitutes contemptuous conduct;
( 2 ) Materially injures or prejudices another party in terms of substantive injury, incurring additional expenses including attorney's fees, prejudicial delay, or otherwise;
( 3 ) Is a clear and unexcused violation of an applicable statute, regulation, or order; or
( 4 ) Unduly delays the proceeding.
( b ) *Sanctions.* Sanctions which may be imposed include any one or more of the following: ( 1 ) Issuing an order against the party;
( 2 ) Rejecting or striking any testimony or documentary evidence offered, or other papers filed, by the party;
( 3 ) Precluding the party from: ( i ) Contesting specific issues or findings;
( ii ) Offering certain evidence or challenging or contesting certain evidence offered by another party; or
( iii ) Making a late filing or conditioning a late filing on any terms that are just;
( 4 ) Assessing reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by any other party as a result of the improper action or failure to act; and
( 5 ) Excluding or suspending a party or person from the adjudicatory proceeding.
( c ) *Procedure for imposition of sanctions.* ( 1 ) Upon the motion of any party, or on the ALJ's own motion, the ALJ may impose sanctions in accordance with this section. The ALJ must submit to the Board for final ruling the sanction of entering a final order determining the case on the merits.
( 2 ) No sanction authorized by this section, other than refusal to accept late filings, must be imposed without prior notice to all parties and an opportunity for any party or person against whom sanctions would be imposed to be heard. Such opportunity to be heard may be on such notice, and the response may be in such form, as the ALJ directs. The ALJ may limit the opportunity to be heard to an opportunity of a party or person to respond orally immediately after the act or inaction covered by this section is noted by the ALJ.
( 3 ) Requests for the imposition of sanctions by any party, and the imposition of sanctions, are subject to interlocutory review in the same manner as any other ruling by the ALJ.
( d ) *Section not exclusive.* Nothing in this section precludes the ALJ or the Board from taking any other action, or imposing any restriction or sanction, authorized by applicable statute or regulation.
May 19, 2015

Jose Miguel Alejandro Calderon Escobar

Quality Assurance Manager

VECA Airlines, S.A. de C.V.

Km 9 Carretera Panamericana, Santa Tecla

La Libertad, El Salvador

Dear Mr. Calderon:

This is in response to your February 16, 2015, letter sent to the public docket (No. FAA2015-0414) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of VECA Airlines

(VECA) for an exemption from § 129.117(e)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

(14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would exempt VECA from the requirements of 

§ 129.117 to meet the 50% fleet compliance requirement for installation of Flammability 

Reduction Means (FRM).

On the compliance date of December 26, 2014, VECA’s fleet consisted of one airplane 

subject to § 129.117(e)(3). That airplane did not meet the FRM requirements of § 129.117 on 

that date. However, VECA was not in violation of § 129.117 as the 50% compliance rate 

requires a minimum of two aircraft to be in a fleet. VECA is proposing to add a second 

aircraft to its fleet, which would also not meet the FRM requirements of § 129.117, bringing 

VECA’s fleet compliance rate to 0%.

The December 26, 2014, 50% compliance date of § 129.117(e)(1) was a “snapshot” in time 

and should not be viewed as a rolling requirement after that deadline. VECA does not need to 

maintain the 50% number as its fleet changes between now and the December 26, 2017, 

100% fleet requirement per § 129.117(e)(2) and (m). However, any airplane added to 

VECA’s fleet after December 2014, will require FRM retrofit by December 26, 2017 (as will 

the initial airplane if it is still in VECA’s fleet).

Because the relief you seek does not require an exemption, we will take no further action on 

your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/

John Barbagallo

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Theragenics Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Francis J. Tarallo, Chief Financial Officer, 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) 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 as of the dates and for the periods referred to in the Report.








Date: May 12, 2011
By:
/s/ Francis J. TaralloFrancis J. TaralloChief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Theragenics Corporation and will be retained by Theragenics Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Rule 217. Confidential Information and Confidential Documents. Certification.

Unless public access is otherwise constrained by applicable authority, any attorney, or any party if unrepresented, who files a document pursuant to these rules with

a magisterial district court shall comply with the requirements of Sections 7.0 and 8.0 of
the Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania (Policy) including a certification of compliance with the Policy and, as

necessary , a Confidential Information Form [ , unless otherwise specified by rule or order of court, ] or a Confidential Document Form in accordance with the Policy.

Note: Applicable authority includes but is not limited to statute, procedural rule or court
order. T he Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania (Policy) can be found on the website of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania at http s ://www.pacourts.us/public

- records. Sections 7.0(D) and 8.0(D) of the Policy provide that t he certification shall be in substantially the following form:

I certify that this filing complies with the provisions of the Case Records Public Access Policy of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non

confidential information and documents.

The Confidential Information Form and the Confidential Document Form can be found at http s ://www.pacourts.us/public

- records.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Morlex, Inc.
financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety be reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                  SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                        3,248
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              3,248
<PP&E>                                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                3,248
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         1,150
<BONDS>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                      31,420
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                                    (29,322)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  3,248
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              0
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              10,590
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (10,590)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (10,590)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (10,590)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0



</TABLE>
# C_2009156EN.01001701.xml

| 9.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/17

---

The EFTA Surveillance Authority has found that the following measure does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement

2009/C 156/11

Date of adoption of the decision:

Case number: 65833

EFTA State: Norway

Region: —

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary): State funding of Eksportfinans

Legal basis: 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

Type of measure: Loan facility

Objective: Providing long-term financing to Eksportfinans

Form of aid: Direct loans

Budget: NOK 30 billion, approx. EUR 3,1 billion

Intensity: —

Duration: Until 31 December 2010

Economic sectors: Eksportfinans provides financing for the entire Norwegian export industry

Name and address of the granting authority:

| The Norwegian State, Ministry of Trade and Industry |
| --- |
| Einar Gerhardsensplass 1 |
| 0030 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

The Norwegian State, Ministry of Trade and Industry

Einar Gerhardsensplass 1

0030 Oslo

NORWAY

Other information: —

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/stateaidregistry/

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

JAMES KRIEGNER, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 956 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Andreas Ueland, as Receiver, etc., Appellant, *v.*Charles B. Hibbard, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Creevey *&*Rogers, for appellant.

Omri F. Hibbard, for respondent.

Conlan, J.

The case was submitted to the decision of the court without a jury. The testimony is wholly on commission. The action was brought upon a promissory note alleged in a complaint to have been made and delivered in Minnesota. The note payable on demand was made by one Robert H. Young to the order of Andreas Ueland, receiver, and, without being indorsed by the payee named therein, was indorsed by the defendant. The defendant pleaded the statute of the State of Minnesota among other defenses, and it appeared by the law of the State that the note in suit should have been presented within sixty days of the date in order to charge the defendant. The presentation within the statute was not proven, and Young, the maker, said that no demand was made upon him for payment within sixty days after the date of the note.

There is no escape from the very positive evidence presented *750by the printed record as to the rights and liabilities of the indorser of a demand note, and of his clear exemption from liability if presentation is not made to the maker within sixty days from its date. The language of the Minnesota statute is so emphatic on this point that we quote it as follows: “No presentment of such note to the promissor and demand for payment shall charge the indorser unless made on or before the last day of said term of sixty days.” The contract was one of a foreign State, the plaintiff a resident of that State, and the defendant a resident of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario, Canada.

We think, for the reasons stated, that the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Schuchman, J., concurs.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.