alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dale *vs*Shirley.

Chancery.

*Case*131.

Error to the Barren Circuit.

*Practice in*Chancery,

A junior mortgagee sought to set aside a purchase under a decretal sale in favor of senior mortgagee, at which the latter had purchased; by the decision of the Court of Appeals he was allowed to redeem upon terms, but delaying to do so for two years, the Chancellor then had a discretion to allow the redemption or refuse it; his refusal to permit it approved, as well on account of the delay as subsequent acts and contracts between tire parties.

*July*24.

Chief Justice Maes-hale

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Daub having, for two years after the entry of the-mandate of this Court, failed to-pay the money in Court as he was allowed by the said mandate to- do, we are of opinion that the Court was not bound, on his offer of the money at so late a period and without explanation, to allow him to pay it with the effect of entitling himself to a quashal of the previous sale and to the benefit of the elder mortgage of Shirley: See *Dale*vs Shirley, (5 *B. Monroe,*492.) As the decree confirming the sale was reversed,and the sale, therefore, stood unconfirmed, the Chancellor might still have had a- discretion to confirm it or to set it aside. But as upon the evidence brought forward on the motion to quash,, it appeared-that Dale had assigned to Shirley the very claims, on account of which his right to interfere in. the case and his equity to redeem Shirley’s mortgage, had been recognized and established by this Court, and had, in return, received a portion of the benefit of Shirley’s purchase, this change in the rights and attitude of the parties, took away the entire basis on which the directions of the Court were founded, and rendered them inapplicable to the case. The parties had, in effect, compromised their controversy and confirmed the sale. And a quashal of it by the Court, on the motion of one and pgainst the consent of the other, could not have been, proper, unless upon grounds which would have authorized a rescission of the compromise and a restoration of the parties to their original rights and attitude. The fairness and validity of this compromise are in litigation between the parties in a suit in equity, pending in the same Court, the record of which was introduced in opposition lo the motion of Dale to quash the sale. And *525We need only remark that the present state of that litigation is not such as to require or authorize the quashal of the sale, and that the equities of the parties will probably be better ascertained and enforced in that suit than they could be in a motion'of this sort, before its termination.

*V. Monroe and Rogers*for plaintiff; *B. Sf A. Monroe*for defendant.

Wherefore, the order overruling the motion of Dale is .affirmed.
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 1 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 2 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 3 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 4 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 5 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 6 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 7 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 8 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 9 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 10 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 11 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 12 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 13 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 14 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 15 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 16 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 17 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 18 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 19 of 20
Case 9:22-cv-81349-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 20 of 20
FeedbackSite MapContact

HOW CAN WE HELP YOU?
		Search for:
	HomeAbout ADRLegislation and Interagency ADR Working GroupReport for the President on Significant Developments in Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution, January 2017 (PDF)External-Facing Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the PublicConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Services for the Federal WorkforcePrograms and ContactsResources and GuidanceConflict Prevention, Management and Resolution Resources for Federal ADR ProgramsInteragency ADR Working Group Resource CenterEventsCoalition of Federal Ombuds
Search for:  One Way to Achieve Creative Solutions

															Home/ADR Resources and Guidance/Guidance/One Way to Achieve Creative Solutions One Way to Achieve Creative SolutionsADR2022-02-18T08:54:09-05:00
			
			One Way to Achieve Creative SolutionsParties increase the odds of achieving a creative solution if they address an issue early, use integrative negotiation techniques, and elect facilitative ADR procedures if assistance is needed.  Consider:
***Early Discussion of the Issue***.  Raising and discussing an issue early in a bid protest or contract dispute has significant benefits aside from simply meeting filing deadlines.  Damages, for example, might be mitigated or minimized if a matter is resolved early.  Likewise, risk of future costs or adverse consequences can be defined and clearly allocated between the parties.  Further, options for trade-offs or beneficial changes orders might be foreclosed as performance under the contract progresses.***Integrative Negotiation Techniques**.*  Characterized by the parties’ willingness to exchange information and identify their interests, integrative negotiation gives the parties the opportunity to expand their discussion beyond the narrow confines of the dispute or protest.***Facilitative ADR***.  Facilitative ADR techniques help the parties communicate, and therefore, help them conduct meaningful integrative negotiations.  During contract performance, facilitated partnering (Chapter 06) is a well-established technique used to anticipate controversy, promote open communication, and reach early resolution.  It is employed before the parties need to file a claim or contract dispute.  Facilitative mediation is available when the parties have not used partnering (or have not used it successfully).  It can be elected either before beginning a legal action, or after a dispute has been filed with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, board of contract appeals, or the FAA ODRA.The importance of these factors can be demonstrated by imagining ahypothetical claim.

**LEARN MORE**
Hypothetical – Using ADR Early
Common Constraints on Creative Resolutions in Federal Acquisitions

Subpages (2): An Early Interest-Based Approach | Common Constraints on Creativity Copyright 2022 ADR.gov | All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  FOIA  |  Section 508
writ_ex103.htm


EXHIBIT 10.3


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 




  





3











  






 





 




  





4











  






 





 




  





5











  






 





 


 


6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 22-61705-CIV-SINGHAL

CENTRE WAY COMPANY LIMITED,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE INDIVIDUALS, PARTNERSHIPS AND 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”,

Defendants.

__________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Paperless Report and 

Recommendation to District Judge (DE [49]), issued on March 27, 2023. Therein, 

Magistrate Judge Valle considered Defendant Presentime’s Notice of Motion, Motion for 

Attorney’s Fees, and Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities (DE [46]) and 

recommended it be denied. The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections 

to the magistrate judge’s factual findings and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. J. R. 4(b).

Here, neither side filed any such objections. With no objections filed, the Court’s 

review of the Report and Recommendation (DE [49]) is properly limited to a de novo

review of only its legal conclusions. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. 

PharmaTech, LLC, 2019 WL 4673739, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2019) (“Legal conclusions 

are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection.”). This Court has reviewed 

Case 0:22-cv-61705-AHS Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

the entire file and record and has made a de novo review of the issues. No objections to 

the Report and Recommendation (DE [49]) have been filed, thus, the Court reviews it for 

clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Magistrate Judge’s Paperless Report and 

Recommendation to District Judge (DE [49]) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Defendant 

Presentime’s Notice of Motion, Motion for Attorney’s Fees, and Supporting Memorandum 

of Points and Authorities (DE [46]) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 1st day of

June 2023.

Copies furnished to counsel of record via CM/ECF

Case 0:22-cv-61705-AHS Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2023 Page 2 of 2
NUMBER 13-22-00107-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

BRYAN ALBERTO CALDERON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 332nd District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on appellant’s fifth motion for extension of time to 

file the brief. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on June 22, 2022. Appellant 

previously requested and received two extensions of time to file the brief, until August 22, 

2022, and then until October 6, 2022. When the Court granted appellant’s second motion 

for extension of time until October 6, 2022, the Clerk of the Court advised appellant’s 
2

counsel that “the Court will grant no further extensions absent exigent circumstances.”

Nevertheless, appellant’s counsel failed to file the brief and has instead filed a third 

request for an extension until October 14, 2022, a fourth request for an extension until 

October 19, 2022, and a fifth request for an extension until October 25, 2022. These

motions for extensions of time to file the brief fail to comply with the appellate rules and 

do not reference any exigent circumstances which satisfactorily explain the delay. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b).

The Court looks with disfavor upon the delay caused by counsel’s failure to have 

timely filed a brief in this matter. Therefore, the Court, having fully examined and 

considered appellant’s most recent motions for extension of time to file the brief and the 

extensions previously granted in this cause, is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, 

appellant’s pending motions for extension of time to file the brief should be granted with 

this order. 

Appellant’s pending motions for an extension of time to file the brief are hereby 

GRANTED, and the Honorable Victoria Guerra, counsel for appellant, is hereby 

ORDERED to file the appellant’s brief with this Court on or before the close of the 

business day on October 25, 2022. The failure to file the brief as ordered herein will 

result in referral to the Court for further proceedings. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

21st day of October, 2022.
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Aceto Corporation, a New York
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Leonard S. Schwartz, Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:




(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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/ Leonard S.
Schwartz


Chairman,
President and


Chief
Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)


May 9,
2008
§ 147.1105 Platform HONDO safety zone. ( a ) *Description:* The area within a line 500 meters from each point on the structure's outer edge. The position of the center of the structure is 34°-23′-27′′ N, 120°-07′-14′′ W.
( b ) *Regulations:* No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone except for the following: ( 1 ) An attending vessel,
( 2 ) a vessel under 100 feet in length overall not engaged in towing, or
( 3 ) a vessel authorized by the Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[CCGD 11-79-02, 47 FR 39679, Sept. 9, 1982; 48 FR 33263, July 21, 1983]
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.1704 Prince William Sound, Alaska-regulated navigation area. ( a ) The following is a regulated navigation area: The navigable waters of the United States north of a line drawn from Cape Hinchinbrook Light to Schooner Rock Light, comprising that portion of Prince William Sound between 146°30′ W. and 147°20′ W. and includes Valdez Arm, Valdez Narrows, and Port Valdez.
( b ) Within the regulated navigation area described in paragraph (a) of this section, § 161.60 of this chapter establishes a VTS Special Area for the waters of Valdez Arm, Valdez Narrows, and Port Valdez northeast of a line bearing 307° True from Tongue Point at 61°02′06′′ N., 146°40′ W.; and southwest of a line bearing 307° True from Entrance Island Light at 61°05′06′′ N., 146°36′42′′ W.
( c ) *Regulations.* In addition to the requirements set forth in § 161.13 and § 161.60(c) of this chapter, a tank vessel of 20,000 deadweight tons or more that intends to navigate within the regulated navigation area must: ( 1 ) Report compliance with part 164 of this chapter, to the Vessel Traffic Center (VTC);
( 2 ) Have at least two radiotelephones capable of operating on the designated VTS frequency, one of which is capable of battery operation;
( 3 ) When steady wind conditions in the VTS Special Area or Port Valdez exceed, or are anticipated to exceed 40 knots, proceed as directed by the VTC (entry into the VTS Special Area and Port Valdez is prohibited);
( 4 ) When transiting the VTS Special Area, limit speed to 12 knots; and
( 5 ) If laden and intending to navigate the VTS Special Area, limit speed to 12 knots except between Middle Rock and Potato Point where the speed limit shall be 6 knots; and
Note:
Regulations pertaining to Automatic Identification System Shipborne Equipment (AISSE) required capabilities are set forth in Part 164 of this chapter.
[CGD 90-020, 59 FR 36335, July 15, 1994, as amended by CGD 95-033, 60 FR 28333, May 31, 1995; CGD 97-023, 62 FR 33365, June 19, 1997; USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35533, June 30, 1998; USCG-2003-14757, 68 FR 39368, July 1, 2003; 68 FR 60570, Oct. 22, 2003; USCG-2005-21869, 80 FR 5336, Jan. 30, 2015]
#### § 457.16 Chief, DOE.

*Chief, DOE* means the Chief of the Division of Enforcement within the Office of Labor-Management Standards.

[78 FR 8026, Feb. 5, 2013]
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, we, the undersigned, hereby 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 our individual knowledge and belief, that:

 

| (1)    | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, which this statement accompanies, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Alabama Power Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Alabama Power Company. |

 

 

|   | /s/Charles D. McCrary

Charles D. McCrary

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

 

  |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | /s/Art P. Beattie

Art P. Beattie

Executive Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer      |

 

 

Date:  November 6, 2006
#### Dorothy M. GRAY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 14359.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Sept. 15, 1958.

Decided Oct. 3, 1958.

Petition for Rehearing Denied Oct. 27, 1958.

*484Mr. Carl W. Berueffy, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court) for appellant.

Mr. Walter J. Bonner, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appel-lee. Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Before Fahy, Washington and Burger, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted with another for violations of the narcotic laws.1 She was tried alone on two counts of a five-count indictment, three of the counts having been dismissed on motion of the United States. She appeals her conviction on the ground, among others, that the court erroneously instructed the jury that the law provides that a person aiding and abetting a principal offender may be charged as a principal. The objection the defense made to the instruction was that it was not justified by the facts in that the alleged principal — the co-indictee — had been held to be not guilty and the case against him had been dismissed. This objection was not sound. As said in Meredith v. United States, 4 Cir., 1956, 238 F.2d 535, 542,

> “conviction of the principal actor is not a prerequisite to conviction of the aider and abettor. It need only be established that the act constituting the offense was in fact committed by someone. * * * ”

Accord, Colosacco v. United States, 10 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 165, 167.

Since the evidence against appellant was quite strong we have no occasion in this case to exercise our discretion to consider other possible defects in the instructions not called to the attention of the trial court. Indeed, under all the circumstances, it seems probable that a more explicit and complete instruction on aiding and abetting would have harmed rather than helped accused’s case, and that the failure by trial counsel to ask for, or by the trial court to give, such an instruction was not in any way prejudicial to the accused.

We have carefully considered all the appellant’s contentions, ably presented by counsel appointed by this court. Finding no reversible error in respect of the instruction, or in any other respect, the judgment is

Affirmed.

1

. 68A Stat. 550 (1954), as amended, 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) (Supp. V, 1958); 35 Stat. 614 (1909), as amended, 21 U.S.C. § 174 (Supp. V, 1958), 21 U.S.C.A. § 174.
Exhibit 32.1

  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            PURSUANT TO 18 USC 1350
                 (Section 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, Levi Mochkin, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer of Avenue Group, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, that to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the annual report on Form 10KSB for the period
ended December 31, 2005 of the Company (the "Report"):

1. the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.

         Date:  April 17, 2006

                                           BY:  /s/  Levi Mochkin
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Levi Mochkin
                                                     President, Chief Executive
                                                     Officer and Principal
                                                     Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 165
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 165 appear by USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36328, 36329, July 2, 2007 and by USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019.

§ 165.709 Security Zone; Charleston Harbor, Cooper River, South Carolina. ( a ) *Regulated area.* The Coast Guard is establishing a fixed security zone on all waters of the Cooper River, bank-to-bank and surface to bottom, from the Don Holt I-526 Bridge to the intersection of Foster Creek at a line on 32 degrees 58 minutes North Latitude.
( b ) *Enforcement period.* This section will be enforced when security assets are on scene and Sector Charleston has notified the maritime community that an Enforcement Period is in effect. Sector Charleston will notify the maritime community by broadcast notice to mariners on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (156.8 MHz), or Marine Safety Information Bulletins, or actual notice from on scene security assets enforcing the security zone.
( c ) *Regulations.* During enforcement of the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section, vessels or persons are prohibited from entering, transiting, mooring, anchoring, or loitering within the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston, South Carolina or his or her designated representative. ( 1 ) Persons desiring to transit the Regulated Area may contact the Captain of the Port via VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at (843) 720-3240 and request permission to transit the security zone.
( 2 ) If permission to transit the security zone is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative.
[COTP Charleston 05-037, 70 FR 43282, July 27, 2005]