alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### UNIVERSAL FINANCE CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MICHAEL KUNA ET UX., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Argued October 1, 1929

Decided October 14, 1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodine.

*863For the plaintiff-respondent, *Michael G. Alenick.*

For the defendants-appellants, *Joseph Zemel.*

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought in the First District Court of Newark. The state of demand declares on a promissory note for $500. The following is a copy of the promissory note sued on.

> *“$500.00/00*Newark, *N. J., 12/18*19¡85

> *Three months*After Date I Promise to pay to the

> Order of *Fred Waller Five Hundred no*Dollars

> Payable at *Federal Trust Co.*

> Value received.

> Michael Kuna

> Eva Kuna

> No. Due 3-18-29

> with 6% interest

> Endorsements

> Fred Walter, Springfield, N. J., Box 224.

> Universal Finance Corp.

> E. F. Hardy, Gen. Mgr. Treas.”

(Note—Capitals indicate part of note printed while Italics indicate part of note written in.)

The case was tried by the judge without a jury resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff for $500. The defendants file four specifications of determinations with respect to which the appellants are dissatisfied in point of law. The fourth is the only one that calls for any discussion, viz.: The court erred in finding that the plaintiff was a holder of the instrument without notice of any defect therein. An examination of the promissory note with the testimony explaining the same shows that the following portions of the note were left blank, when signed by the *defendants—$500.00/00—Three months—Fred Walter—Five Hundred no—Federal Trust Co. —with 6% interest.*

*864The claim of the defendants was that they signed a receipt for $200. The trial judge found as a fact this was not so. The findings of fact by the trial court is supported by reliable evidence. With that conclusion of the trial court on the testimony in the record, we concur. The testimony of the defendants is uncertain and unreliable. The case is controlled by the Uniform Negotiable Instrument law. 3 *Comp. Skat. p.*3736, §§ 14, 15, 16. The cases of *Autographic Register Co.*v. *Lirio,*6 *N. J. Mis. R.*134; *Maurer*v. *Hahn,*6 *N. J. Adv. R.*337; *Asbury Path Electric Supply Co.*v. *Megill,*102 *N. J. L.*496, are not in point. They are distinguished on the facts.

The judgment of the First District Court of Newark is therefore affirmed.
§ 707.4 Self-evaluation and remedial measures. ( a ) The Agency shall, before February 16, 1991 evaluate its current policies and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part, and, to the extent modification of any such policies and practices is required, the Agency shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
( b ) The Agency shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with disabilities and organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments (both oral and written).
( c ) The Agency shall, for at least three years following completion of the evaluation required under paragraph (a) of this section, maintain on file and make available for public inspection: ( 1 ) A description of areas examined and any problems identified; and
( 2 ) A description of any modifications made.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 21, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40715 Conference Calendar

ROBERT TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UTMB GALVESTON TEXAS; ENI IKEDINOBI, DR., Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-00-CV-548

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Taylor, Texas prisoner # 781985, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se , in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, which alleged a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights in connection with the medical treatment he received following a laceration to his wrist while working in the prison laundry. The district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).No. 03-40715 -2- The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint. Taylor’s allegations amounted to claims for negligence or medical malpractice, which are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Varnado v. Lynaugh , 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal as frivolous counts as one strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Taylor is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). AFFIRMED, SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 23.3

 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

 

The Board of DirectorsNetLojix Communications, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos.333-30725 and 333-64769) on Form S-8 of NetLojix Communications, Inc. of ourreport dated February 18, 2000, relating to the consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders' deficit and cash flows of NetLojix Communications,Inc. and subsidiaries (formerly AvTel Communications, Inc.) for the year ended December 31, 1999, which report appearsin the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of NetLojix Communications,Inc. 

 

                           /s/ KPMG LLP

 

Dallas, TexasMarch 25, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

EUGENIA DUMITRIEADE, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SYNCHRONY BANK, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

 Case No. 15-cv-10173 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties set forth below, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all claims that were or could have been 

brought in this matter are dismissed with prejudice, without costs or attorney fees 

to either side. 

 This Order closes this case. 

 /s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: September 3, 2015 

 

Case 2:15-cv-10173-MFL-RSW ECF No. 24 filed 09/03/15 PageID.93 Page 1 of 2
2 

Stipulated to by: 

Krohn & Moss, Ltd. 

By: /s/Ryan S. Lee 

Ryan S. Lee 

Attorney for Plaintiff Eugenia 

Dumitrieade 

Segal Mccambridge Singer & Mahoney, 

LTD. 

By: /s/Alan J. Taylor 

Alan J. Taylor (P51660) 

Attorney for Defendant Synchrony 

Bank 

Case 2:15-cv-10173-MFL-RSW ECF No. 24 filed 09/03/15 PageID.94 Page 2 of 2
#### § 170.135 [Reserved]
Exhibit 4.1

                            [Dtomi, Inc. letterhead]

                                January 18, 2005

Monty Abbott
Cambridge Securities Group, Inc.
8871 SE Clearwater
Port Orchard, WA 98367

Dear Mr. Abbott:

         This letter agreement memorializes our agreement as to amending that
certain Consulting Services Agreement dated July 23, 2004, by and between Dtomi,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), and Cambridge Securities Group, Inc.
(the "Agreement"). All capitalized terms used herein shall be ascribed those
definitions provided for in the Agreement.

         Section 6 of the Agreement is hereby amended so that the Company shall
issue an additional two million seven hundred fifty thousand (2,750,000) shares
of common stock of the Company (the "Shares") to Consultant for the performance
of the Consulting Services to the Company. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby
amended to extend the term by an additional period of one year.

         If you agree with the foregoing, please sign below and return a copy of
this letter to me by facsimile today and the original by overnight delivery.

                                            Sincerely,

                                            John Haddock

Agreed and Accepted:

Cambridge Securities Group, Inc.

By:
    -----------------------------
    Name:  Monty Abbott
    Title:  President

Dated:
     ----------------------------

                                       4
# C_2013313EN.01002402.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products v OHIM (Representation of a tampon)

(Case T-492/11) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a sanitary tampon - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)

2013/C 313/47

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant:‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Stütz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 July 2011 (Case R 2168/2010-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a sanitary tampon as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.051-1 Scope. ( a ) This subpart prescribes requirements for approval by the Coast Guard of A, B, and Coastal Service inflatable liferafts for use only in domestic service. These liferafts must comply with all of the requirements for SOLAS A and SOLAS B liferafts in subpart 160.151 except as specified in this subpart.
( b ) This subpart does not apply to any A, B, and Coastal Service inflatable liferaft for use only in domestic service that has been approved by the Coast Guard before November 10, 2011, so long as the liferaft satisfies the annual servicing requirements set forth in 46 CFR 160.151-57.
[USCG-2010-0048, 76 FR 62975, Oct. 11, 2011, as amended by 76 FR 70062, Nov. 10, 2011]
Exhibit 31.1

                                                             CERTIFICATION


I, Declan A. French, Chief Executive Officer of Thinkpath Inc., certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Thinkpath Inc.;

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

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
         information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report
         is being prepared;

                  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
         controls and procedures as of a date within 45 days prior to the filing
         date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c) presented in this quarterly 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 the registrant's board of directors:

                  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.


Date: May 21, 2004
                                                    /S/ DECLAN FRENCH

                                                    Declan A. French
                                                    Chief Executive Officer



<PAGE>
§ 167.45-50 Foam smothering system requirements. ( a ) When a foam-type system is fitted, its capacity shall be such as to rapidly discharge over the entire area of the bilge (tank top) of the largest boiler room a volume of foam 6 inches deep in not more than 3 minutes. The arrangement of piping shall be such as to give a uniform distribution over the entire area protected.
( b ) The foam-type system may be of a type approved by the Navy or Coast Guard. All containers and valves by which the system is operated shall be easily accessible and so placed that control valves and containers will not readily be cut off from use by an outbreak of fire.
1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Central Federal Corporation;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this 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 report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
 c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date:      November 13, 2008
    /s/ Therese Ann LiutkusTherese Ann Liutkus, CPATreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Dallas Buyers Club, LLC, )

)

) Case: No. 14-cv-11655

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) 

Does 1-15, )

 ) 

Defendants. )

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary

Dismissal, without prejudice, as to all remaining Defendants identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint

that have not already been dismissed. This terminates the matter. 

DATED: October 15, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

By : s/Paul J. Nicoletti

Paul Nicoletti (P-44419)

NICOLETTI LAW, PLC

33717 Woodward Avenue, Ste. #433

Birmingham, MI 48009

Landline: (248) 203-7800

eFax: (248) 928-7051

Email: pauljnicoletti@gmail.com

http://www.nicolettilawplc.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB, LLC

2:14-cv-11655-MFL-MKM Doc # 7 Filed 10/15/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 44
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 25, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20500-20501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2064]


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

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting--May 9, 2007--7 p.m.

    In connection with its investigation into the cause of a November 
22, 2006, explosion and fire at the CAI/Arnel manufacturing facility in 
Danvers, Massachusetts, the United States Chemical Safety and Hazard 
Investigation Board (CSB) announces that it will convene a community 
meeting on May 9, 2007 starting at 7 p.m. in the Grand Ballroom at the 
Sheraton Ferncroft Resort, 50 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923.
    At the meeting CSB staff will present to the Board the preliminary 
results of their investigation into this incident. There will be a 
public comment period after the investigators' presentation.
    During the early morning hours of November 22, a powerful explosion 
destroyed the CAI/Arnel manufacturing facility in Danvers, 
Massachusetts. Scores of nearby homes and businesses were damaged, some 
beyond repair. A number of residents were hospitalized. There were no 
injuries in the plant, which was unoccupied at the time.
    After the staff presentation, the Board will allow a time for 
public comment. Following the conclusion of the public comment period, 
the Board will consider whether the preliminary facts presented 
necessitate any recommendations prior to the final completion of the 
Board's investigative report.
    All staff presentations are preliminary and are intended solely to 
allow the Board to consider in a public forum the issues and factors 
involved in this case. No factual analyses, conclusions or findings 
should be considered final.

[[Page 20501]]

Only after the Board has considered a final staff presentation and 
approved the staff report next year will there be an approved final 
record of this incident.
    The meeting will be open to the public. Please notify CSB if a 
translator or interpreter is needed, at least 5 business days prior to 
the public meeting. For more information, please contact the Chemical 
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board at (202) 261-7600, or visit our 
Web site at: http://www.csb.gov.

Christopher W. Warner,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 07-2064 Filed 4-23-07; 2:56 pm]
BILLING CODE 6350-01-P
§ 130.460 Placement of machinery alarms. ( a ) Visible and audible alarms must be installed at the pilothouse to indicate the following: ( 1 ) Loss of power for propulsion control.
( 2 ) Loss of power to the steering motor or for control of the main steering gear.
( 3 ) Engine-room fire.
( 4 ) High bilge-level.
( 5 ) Low lube-oil pressure for each main propulsion engine and each prime mover of a generator.
( 6 ) For each main propulsion engine and each prime mover of a generator— ( i ) High lube-oil temperature; and
( ii ) High jacket-water temperature.
( 7 ) For each reduction gear and each turbocharger with a pressurized oil system— ( i ) Low lube-oil pressure; and
( ii ) High lube-oil temperature.
( 8 ) Loss of normal power for the alarms listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(7) of this section.
( b ) Sensors for the high-bilge-level alarm required by paragraph (a)(4) of this section must be installed in— ( 1 ) Each space below the deepest load waterline that contains pumps, motors, or electrical equipment; and
( 2 ) The compartment that contains the rudder post.
( c ) Centralized displays must be installed in the machinery spaces to allow rapid evaluation of each problem detected by the alarms required by paragraph (a) of this section. Equipment-mounted gauges or meters are acceptable for this purpose, if they are grouped at a central site.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00546-CV

IN RE J. Douglas SUTTER and Karen S. Sutter

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 2, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On May 24, 2023, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the 

petition, real party in interest’s response, relators’ reply, and this record, this court concludes 

relators are not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is 

denied without prejudice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 21-1492-CV-E, styled J. Douglas Sutter and Karen S. Sutter v. Guadalupe 

Appraisal District, pending in the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable Margaret 

Garner Mirabal presiding.
#### Thomas A. Brown and others, *Respondents, v.*John P. Smith and others, Appellants.

Order modified as directed in opinion, and affirmed as modified, without costs to either party. Opinion by

Brady, J.
#### Emil Callman, Appellant, *v.*The Exchange Fire Insurance Company, *Respondent.*Same *v.*The Emporium Fire Insurance Company, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Ingalls, J.