alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1





                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                              CAUTIONARY STATEMENT


         Reality Interactive, Inc. (the "Company"), or persons acting on behalf
of the Company, or outside reviewers retained by the Company making statements
on behalf of the Company, or underwriters, from time to time make, in writing or
orally, "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. When used in conjunction with an identified
forward-looking statement, this Cautionary Statement is for the purpose of
qualifying for the "safe harbor" provisions of such sections and is intended to
be a readily available written document that contains factors which could cause
results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements. These factors
are in addition to any other cautionary statements, written or oral, which may
be made or referred to in connection with any such forward-looking statement.

         The following matter, among others, may have a material adverse effect
on the business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations or
prospects, financial or otherwise, of the Company. Reference to this Cautionary
Statement in the context of a forward-looking statement or statements shall be
deemed to be a statement that may cause actual results to differ materially from
those in such forward-looking statement or statements:

        DISCONTINUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS. The Company ceased its business
operations effective April 30, 1999. Management of the Company believes this
action was necessary in light of the Company's current liquidity needs and lack
of short-term revenue opportunities. The Company is currently exploring
potential uses for the Company in its current form as an inoperative public
company. In the meantime, the Company intends to comply with all SEC filing
requirements in order to maintain the Company's good standing under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In the event the Company is unable
to find a suitable acquisition or merger candidate or other suitable use for the
Company in the near future, the Company will be liquidated and its remaining
assets will be distributed to its creditors in satisfaction of its then-current
obligations and, if any assets remain thereafter, to its shareholders. There can
be no assurance that any such candidate or other suitable use for the Company or
its assets will be found.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

**OF**

**WORLD FINANCIALNETWORK NATIONAL BANK, AS SERVICER OF**

**WORLD FINANCIALNETWORK CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST**

 

**Thiscertification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 and accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2003 (the “Form 10-K”) of World Financial Network Credit CardMaster Trust (the “Registrant”).**

 

I, Daniel Groomes, the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Servicer of the Registrant certify that to the best of myknowledge:

 

(i)  the Form 10-K fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

 

(ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theRegistrant.

 

 
| Dated: March 30, 2004                                       |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                             |
|                                                             |
|                                                             | /s/   Daniel Groomes |   |
|                                                             | Name: Daniel Groomes |
|                                                             | Chief Financial Officer |
|                                                             |
|                                                             |
| Subscribed and sworn to before me  this 30th day of March, 2004. |
|                                                             |
|                                                             |
| /s/Notary                                                        |   |
| Name:                                                            |
| Title: Notary Public                                             |
| My commission expires:                                           |
|                                                                  |  |  |  |

 

----
#### Max Strammer, Respondent, *v.*Abraham Mendelson, Appellant.

*Strammer*v. Mendelson, 136 App. Div. —, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted February 7, 1910;

decided February 15, 1910.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 7, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action for conversion.

The motion was made upon the grounds that the Appellate Division had unanimously decided that the verdict was supported by the evidence, and the only exceptions appearing in the record were frivolous.

*Joseph A. Seidman*for motion.

*J. Stewart Ross*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
**Exhibit 21.1**     The active subsidiaries owned directly or indirectly by Loral    Space & Communications Inc. as of March 1, 2008,    all 100% owned (except as noted below) consist of the following:        Loral Space & Communications Holdings Corporation     Delaware    Loral Skynet Corporation     Delaware    Loral Satmex LLC     Delaware    Space Systems/Loral, Inc.      Delaware    International Space Technology,    Inc.(1)     Delaware    Cosmotech(1)     Russian Federation    SS/L Isle of Man Limited     Isle of Man    Loral General Partner, Inc.      Delaware    LGP (Bermuda) Ltd.      Bermuda    Loral Holdings LLC     Delaware    Mexico Satellite,    LLC(2)     Delaware    Loral Global Services N.V.      Netherlands Antilles    Loral Global Services B.V.      Netherlands    Loral Holdings Corporation     Delaware **NOTES**(1)    Only 51.0% owned directly or indirectly (2)    Only 77.78% owned directly or indirectly
NEW YORK SUPERIOR COURT.

#### Mary McLain, an Infant, &c., agt. Thomas Van Zandt.

*Special*Term, November, 1874.

*Contributory negligence by a parent which pe'events recovery for an injury to his child.*

It is not the policy of the law to award damages where there has been any relaxation of parental duties and obligations toward a feeble or unprotected child, that may tend to encourage or induce neglect — still less when a parent by a direct act, exposes a child at a helpless or tender age to suffer injury, does the law favor the recovery of damages for an injury thus caused. ®

*John T.*Williams, for plaintiff.

*John*Sherwood,, for defendant

Curtis, J.

The action is to recover damages for injuries sustained by falling into an unprotected area on defendant’s premises. The father, who lived next door, and had a constant opportunity of seeing the area, sent the plaintiff, an infant three years and eight months old, across the street unattended, telling her to go to her mother." He testifies: “Away she went, and I watched her to see whether she 'would go in; and just as she went there she lifted her foot to go up — there is only one step to the door — as she lifted her foot to go up that step she fell into the areaway.”

There was no dispute as to these facts, and the judge dismissed the complaint at the trial. This can only be sustained on the ground that there was negligence on the part of the father, which contributed to the plaintiff’s injury

*81' The child was of such tender years that it was incapable of self-protection, and could not be responsible for its own acts, and, by a law of nature, relies upon its parents for guidance and protection.

I am inclined to think that it was the duty of the father, who was familiar with the locality and the risk the child was exposed to in crossing the street and ascending the step, to have accompanied the child instead of standing at a distance and watching it to see whether she would go in. This very act shows that he felt a doubt as to its capacity to perform the brief journey, and it was reasonable that he should feel so.

It is not the policy of the law to award damages where there has been any relaxation "of parental duties and obligations toward a feeble or unprotected child, that may tend to encourage or induce neglect — still less when a parent, by a direct act, exposes a child at a helpless and tender age tO' suffer injury, does the law favor the recovery of damages for an injury thus caused.

This case seems to be one where there was negligence on the part of the father, which contributed to the plaintiff’s injury, and where no question of fact existed to be submitted to the jury. The judge at the trial properly granted the motion to dismiss the complaint *(Mangan*agt. *Brooklyn R. R.,*38 N. *Y.,*458; *Bulger*agt. *The Albany R. R.,*42 N. *Y.,*462).

The motion for a new trial must be denied.
# C_2011130EN.01002301.xml

| 30.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/23

---

Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Gnango v Council

(Case T-139/11)

2011/C 130/44

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Loba Emmanuel Patrice Gnango (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Loba Emmanuel Patrice GNANGO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Loba Emmanuel Patrice GNANGO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

| — | consequently,






  — | annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

consequently,

—

annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

| — | alternatively, order that the name of Mr Loba Emmanuel Patrice GNANGO be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision. |
| --- | --- |

—

alternatively, order that the name of Mr Loba Emmanuel Patrice GNANGO be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.

Guiai Bi Poin

Council

---
§ 170.235 Fixed ballast. ( a ) Fixed ballast, if used, must be— ( 1 ) Installed under the supervision of the OCMI; and
( 2 ) Stowed in a manner that prevents shifting of position.
( b ) Fixed ballast may not be removed from a vessel or relocated unless approved by the Coast Guard Marine Safety Center. However, ballast may be temporarily moved for vessel examination or repair if done under the supervision of the OCMI.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51010, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by CGD 88-070, 53 FR 34537, Sept. 7, 1988; CGD 95-028, 62 FR 51218, Sept. 30, 1997; USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78084, Dec. 14, 2010]
# C_2012287EN.01004203.xml

| 22.9.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/42

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2012 — BK v Commission

(Case F-140/11) (1)

1

2012/C 287/80

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.12, p. 25.

1

---
124 STAT. 2254 PUBLIC LAW 111–209—JULY 27, 2010 

Public Law 111–209 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the effective date of the gift card provisions of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DELAY OF EFFECTIVE DATE. 

Title IV of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and 

Disclosure Act, is amended by striking section 403 and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘SEC. 403. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided under subsection (b) 

of this section, this title and the amendments made by this title 

shall become effective 15 months after the date of enactment of 

this Act. 

‘‘(b) EXCEPTION.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of a gift certificate, store 

gift card, or general-use prepaid card that was produced prior 

to April 1, 2010, the effective date of the disclosure requirements described in sections 915(b)(3) and (c)(2)(B) of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act shall be January 31, 2011, provided 

that an issuer of such a certificate or card shall— 

‘‘(A) comply with paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 

915(b) of such Act; 

‘‘(B) consider any such certificate or card for which 

funds expire to have no expiration date with respect to 

the underlying funds; 

‘‘(C) at a consumer’s request, replace such certificate 

or card that has funds remaining at no cost to the consumer; and 

‘‘(D) comply with the disclosure requirements of paragraph (2) of this subsection. 

‘‘(2) DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.—The disclosure requirements of this subsection are met by providing notice to consumers, via in-store signage, messages during customer service 

calls, Web sites, and general advertising, that— 

‘‘(A) any such certificate or card for which funds expire 

shall be deemed to have no expiration date with respect 

to the underlying funds; 

‘‘(B) consumers holding such certificate or card shall 

have a right to a free replacement certificate or card that 

includes the packaging and materials, typically associated 

with such a certificate or card; and 

Notice. 

Web posting. 

15 USC 1693l–1 

note. 

July 27, 2010 

[H.R. 5502] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
PUBLIC LAW 111–209—JULY 27, 2010 124 STAT. 2255 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5502: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

June 14, considered and passed House. 

July 13, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

‘‘(C) any dormancy fee, inactivity fee, or service fee 

for such certificates or cards that might otherwise be 

charged shall not be charged if such fees do not comply 

with section 915 of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. 

‘‘(3) PERIOD FOR DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.—The notice 

requirements in paragraph (2) of this subsection shall continue 

until January 31, 2013.’’. 

Approved July 27, 2010. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
§ 171.060 Watertight subdivision: General. ( a ) Each of the following vessels must be shown by design calculations to comply with the requirements in §§ 171.065 through 171.068 for Type I subdivision: ( 1 ) Each vessel 100 gross tons or more on an international voyage: and
( 2 ) Each vessel 150 gross tons or more in ocean service.
( b ) Each vessel not described in paragraph (a) of this section must be shown by design calculations to comply with the requirements in §§ 171.070 to 171.073 for Type II subdivision.
( c ) Except as allowed in § 171.070(c), each vessel must have a collision bulkhead.
( d ) Each double-ended ferry that is required by paragraph (c) of this section to have a collision bulkhead must also have a second collision bulkhead. One collision bulkhead must be located in each end of the vessel.
[CGD 79-023, 48 FR 51017, Nov. 4, 1983, as amended by USCG-2007-0030, 75 FR 78085, Dec. 14, 2010]
#### § 15.1109 Watches.

Except those serving on vessels listed in § 15.105(f) and (g) of this part, each master of a vessel that operates beyond the boundary line, as described in part 7 of this chapter, must ensure observance of the principles concerning watchkeeping set out in Regulation VIII/2 of the STCW Convention and section A-VIII/2 of the STCW Code (both incorporated by reference, see § 15.103 of this part).
§ 174.005 Applicability. Each of the following vessels must comply with the applicable provisions of this part: ( a ) Deck cargo barge.
( b ) Mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) inspected under subchapter IA of this chapter.
( c ) Tugboat and towboat inspected under subchapter I of this chapter.
( d ) Self-propelled hopper dredge having an assigned working freeboard.
( e ) Oceangoing ships of 500 gross tons or over, as calculated by the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969, designed primarily for the carriage of dry cargoes, including roll-on/roll-off ships.
( f ) Offshore supply vessel inspected under subchapter L of this chapter.
( g ) Liftboat inspected under subchapter L of this chapter.
[CGD 95-012, 60 FR 48052, Sept. 18, 1995; 60 FR 50120, Sept. 28, 1995, as amended by CGD 82-004, CGD 86-074, 60 FR 57671, Nov. 16, 1995; CGD 82-004 and CGD 86-074, 62 FR 49353, Sept. 19, 1997]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

VALERIE THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LJ ROSS ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:14-cv-14523

Honorable Denise Page Hood

Magistrate Mona K. Majzoub

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff 

Valerie Thompson and Defendant LJ Ross Associates, Inc., through their undersigned counsel, 

stipulate and agree, that the above-captioned action be dismissed with prejudice. The parties 

further agree that each side shall bear their own attorney’s fees and costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2015 s/Denise Page Hood

Honorable Denise Page Hood

Stipulated and Agreed: February 26, 2015

/s/ Adam G. Taub (w/ consent)

Adam G. Taub (P48703)

Adam G. Taub & Associates 

17200 W. Ten Mile Rd., Suite 200

Southfield, MI 48075

T: (248) 746-3790

F: (248) 746-3793

adamgtaub@clgplc.net

/s/ Charity A. Olson

Charity A. Olson (P68295)

OLSON LAW GROUP

2723 S. State St., Suite 150

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

T: (734) 222-5179

F: (866) 941-8712

colson@olsonlawpc.com

1

Case 2:14-cv-14523-DPH-MKM ECF No. 12 filed 02/27/15 PageID.74 Page 1 of 1
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Plaintiff, Case Nos. 14-cr-20600 and 

Case No. 17-cr-20210 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

LEWIS JAQUON NELSON, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR EARLY RELEASE 

 Defendant Lewis Jaquon Nelson is a federal inmate in the custody of the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons. On August 1, 2018, the Court sentenced Nelson to 

consecutive terms of imprisonment of 33 months and 12 months on two separate 

criminal cases that were pending at that time. (See Judgments, ECF No. 17, Case 

No. 17-cr-20210; ECF No. 37, Case No. 14-cr-20600.) Nelson is set to be released 

from custody in March 2022, less than 45 days from now. 

 On February 9, 2022, Nelson filed a request for early release in both of his 

criminal cases. (See Reqs., ECF No. 37, Case No. 17-cr-20210; ECF No. 41, Case 

No. 14-cr-20600.) Nelson says that he has been a productive inmate while 

incarcerated, that he has not received any “write-ups or caused any negative 

situations” while imprisoned, and that he has been speaking with staff members to 

improve his mental health. (Id.) He further says that proof of his changed outlook 

Case 4:14-cr-20600-MFL-SDD ECF No. 42, PageID.382 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 3
2 

can be found in the fact that when he was mistakenly released from custody in 2018, 

he self-reported that he believed he had been released in error. (See id.) 

 The Court commends Nelson for his diligent work to improve his well-being 

while in custody. It is confident that that Nelson’s hard work will pay dividends 

once he is released. But unfortunately for Nelson, federal courts do not generally 

possess the authority to grant early release to federal inmates. And Nelson has not 

provided the Court any basis to do so here. For instance, the Court can, in some 

exceptional circumstances, grant compassionate release to inmates pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), but Nelson has not explained how he may qualify for release 

under that provision. Simply put, the Court sees no basis under which it has the 

authority to release Nelson from custody early. However, the Court notes that the 

time remaining on Nelson’s sentence is very short, and he will be released from 

custody in the near future. 

 For all of the reasons explained above, while the Court credits Nelson’s selfimprovement while in custody, it DENIES his request for early release. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: February 22, 2022 

Case 4:14-cr-20600-MFL-SDD ECF No. 42, PageID.383 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 3
3 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on February 22, 2022, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126 

Case 4:14-cr-20600-MFL-SDD ECF No. 42, PageID.384 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 3