alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### NEW JERSEY ALUMINUM COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CHARMS COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Submitted October term, 1928

Decided January 3, 1929.

Before Justices Mintuen, Black and Campbell.

Por the appellant, *Charles S. Smith*and *Merritt Lane.*

"Eor the respondent, *William A. Wachenfeld.*

Pee Curiam.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered upon the striking out of the second paragraph of the answer filed in this cause.

The parties entered into a written lease on November 1st, 1923, for premises 699-711 Springfield avenue, Newark, for a term of five years. Defendant occupied the premises until May, 1927, when it vacated but continued to pay rent to and including September, 1927.

The action was brought to recover the rent for October, November and December, 1927, amounting to $3,735.40, and an increase in cost of insurance amounting to $835.02.

The lease contained the following provisions:

*69“It is further agreed between the parties hereto that all interior repairs to the said premises shall be made at the cost and expense of the lessee except to the roof of said building, repairs to which shall be made and paid for by the lessor,” and

“Lt is expressly understood and agreed that said lessee is to take over said buildings in the condition in which they are at the present time; that said lessee make all repairs, alterations, changes of any kind at its own expense during the continuance of this lease as hereinafter set forth * * *.”

The defendant answered and counter-claimed.

The answer admits the lease and by its second paragraph denies any rent due because it says the premises became unsuitable for its business by disrepair and faulty repair of the roof.

We are not in this appeal concerned with the remaining portion of the answer because it is directed at the right of the lessor to recover extra cost of insurance and the summary judgment under review is for rent only. Neither are we here concerned with the counter-claim.

The second paragraph of the answer was struck out because it presented no facts constituting a legal defense to the action for rent.

Appellant urges that it presented facts amounting to constructive eviction and at least presented a question of fact.

We think not and that on the contrary the question involved is settled by *Stewart*v. *Childs Co.,*86 *N. J. L.*648. There was, therefore, no error in striking out this portion of the answer and in ordering summary judgment.

Appellant further contends that if the answer was not sufficient leave should have been extended to it to amend. The case before us does not show any application for such leave and it is therefore not a matter that may be argued here.

The judgment below is affirmed, with costs.
#### MARGARET DEL ROSSO, RESPONDENT, v. UNITED STATES TRUCKING CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE OF NEW YORK, APPELLANT.

Submitted May term, 1929

Decided November 7, 1929.

*968Before Justices Trerchard, Lloyd and Case.

Eor the appellant, *Hanley <& Wynne.*

Eor the respondent, *Barison ■& Barison.*

Per Curiam.

This case comes before us on appeal from the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas and involves a single question. The plaintiff sued to recover damages for injuries received in an automobile accident. The sole error alleged is that the court erroneously admitted in evidence a written statement made by the defendant’s driver to a police officer a few hours after the accident. While the statement was inadmissible, the appeal should not be reversed, and that for the reason that no valid objection was made to its admission.

The objections urged were that the driver was not there to refute any testimony that the police officer might give and that the police officer was not present at a former trial of the case. The court said: “If that is the only objection it will be overruled.” That the statement was incompetent we have no doubt. The defendant was entitled to have the witness in court subject to cross-examination but this objection was not urged and presumably was waived. *Phelps*v. *Fuchs and Lang Manufacturing*Co., 82 *N. J. L.*474. The respondent contends in addition that there was no exception taken to the court’s ruling. Without passing on this point we think that for the reason already given the judgment must be affirmed.
Exhibit 99.1

Certification Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted), Thomas M. Siebel, Chairman and CEO of Siebel Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), and Kenneth A. Goldman, Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 14th day of March, 2003.

|/s/ Thomas M. Siebel
Thomas M. Siebel 
Chairman and CEO 
(Principal Executive Officer) | /s/ Kenneth A. Goldman
Kenneth A. Goldman
Senior Vice President, Finance and
  Administration and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 32.1

               CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


The undersigned  hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Executive  Officer of
Belcrest Capital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

(a)  the  Quarterly  Report of the Fund on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
     31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(b)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund
     for such period.


Date:  May 10, 2004


                                        /s/ Thomas E. Faust Jr.
                                        -----------------------
                                        Thomas E. Faust Jr.
                                        Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.0

                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-781, 333-02283, and 333-11143) of Matria Healthcare, Inc.
(formerly Tokos Medical Corporation (Delaware)) and in the related Prospectus of
our report dated February 22, 1996, except for Note 13 as to which the date is
March 8, 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedules of Matria Healthcare, Inc. as of December 31, 1995 and for each of the
two years in the period then ended included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1996.


                                          /s/  Ernst & Young LLP



Orange County, California
March 27, 1997
<PAGE>   2
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.0


                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Matria Healthcare, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-781, 333-02283, 333-11143) on Form S-8 of Matria Healthcare, Inc. of our
reports dated March 7, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of
Matria Healthcare, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash
flows and related schedule for the year ended December 31, 1996, which reports
appear in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Matria
Healthcare, Inc.


                                           KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 28, 1997
§ 169.823 Openings. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all watertight doors in subdivision bulkheads, hatches, and openings in the hull must be kept closed during the navigation of the vessel.
( b ) The master may permit hatches or other openings to be uncovered or opened for reasonable purposes such as ship's maintenance, when existing conditions warrant the action and the openings can readily be closed.
Exhibit 99.1

Statement of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Robert D. Parks, the Chief Executive Officer of Inland Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that:

(1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;

(2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

/S/________________________________

Name: Robert D. Parks

Title: Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 14, 2002
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MARK BERMAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 2:14-cv-12720 

v. District Judge Gershwin A. Drain 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION, 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S 

SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL (DE 34) 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s second 

motion to compel (DE 34), Plaintiff’s response (DE 36), and the parties joint status 

report (DE 42). Defendant’s motion came before the Court for a hearing on July 

15, 2015. For the reasons stated on the record, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED 

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Court sustains Plaintiff’s 

objection to the form of Defendant’s request for production of documents #9, but 

will allow Defendant to cure the defect by the following process: 

1. Before 5:00 p.m. on July 15, 2015, Defendant shall send to Plaintiff a 

modified first request for production of documents #9 (“Request #9”), by 

2:14-cv-12720-GAD-APP Doc # 43 Filed 07/15/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 737
2

email and fax, that conforms to the manner in which it requested the ADA 

code information during the claims process. 

2. Plaintiff will have six weeks from the electronic receipt of that request in 

which to respond. If the request does not conform substantially to the 

manner in which Defendant initially requested the information during the 

claims process in a way that is problematic, Plaintiff may bring the issue to 

the Court for resolution. 

3. Defendant is ORDERED to pay Plaintiff for 16 hours of his office 

manager’s time spent in compiling the response to Request #9, which is 

reported to be $22.50 per hour, totaling $360. In addition, because 

Plaintiff’s argument that responding to the modified request will cause 

additional disruption in his business was compelling, Defendant is further 

ORDERED to pay Plaintiff $1,000 for this inconvenience. This $1,360 

payment must be tendered to Plaintiff or his counsel no later than AUGUST 

15, 2015. 

 Both parties have requested that the Court award attorney fees for costs 

incurred in bringing or responding to the motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

37 provides that, when a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part, 

“the court may . . . after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion reasonable 

2:14-cv-12720-GAD-APP Doc # 43 Filed 07/15/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 738
3

expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) (emphasis added). After finding 

some degree of fault on both sides, the Court declines to do so here. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 15, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record 

on July 15, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/ Michael Williams 

 Case Manager to the 

Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

 

2:14-cv-12720-GAD-APP Doc # 43 Filed 07/15/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 739
CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of SARS Corporation., a Nevada corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Alan Chaffee, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his
knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Alan
Chaffee


By: Alan
Chaffee


Its:
Chief Financial





May 15,
2008





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
SARS Corporation and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 39935/39965

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

JOSEPH DARRELLD MAESTAS, aka JOSEPH DARRELL MAESTAS; JOSEPH DARRYL MAESTAS; JOSEPH DARRELD MAESTAS ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 477

Filed: May 2, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

TH IS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal s from the District Court s of the Fourth and Third Judicial District s , State of Idaho, Ada and Canyon Counties . Hon. Ronald J. Wilper , District Judge ; Hon. Molly J. Huskey, District Judge.

Order s deny ing Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion s for reduction of
sentence s , affirmed

.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
In docket number 39935, Joseph Darrelld Maestas, aka Joseph Darrell Maestas, Joseph
Darryl Maestas, Joseph Darrel d Maestas

, pled guilty to burglary

, Idaho Code § 18

- 1401, and
grand theft , I.C. §§ 18

- 2403(1), 18

- 2407(1)(b) . The district court sentenced Maestas to a concurrent, unified term of ten years, with two years determinate, for each conviction

. In docket
number 39965, Maestas pled guilt y to burglary. I.C. § 18

- 1401. The district court sentenced

M aestas to a unified term of ten years, with two years determinate, to run concurrently with2 Maestas’s sentences in docket number 39935. Maestas filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion s in
both cases seeking a reduction of his sentences. The district court de nied the motions. Maestas
appealed in both cases, and the two cases have been consolidated on appeal.

A motion for reducti on of sentence under Rule 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton

, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d
23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In
presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of
new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the
record, including the new information submitted with Maestas’s Rule 35 motion s , we conclude

no abuse of discretio n has been shown. Therefore, the district court s ’ order s denying Maestas’s

Rule 35 motion s are affirmed.
#### The Albany City National Bank, *Respondent, v.*The City of Albany, *Appellant*.

J udgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Bumsey, J.;

Learned, Jr. J., not acting.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2010]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Quality Workgroup 
Meeting

ACTION: Announcement of meeting

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 8th meeting of the American Health 
Information Community Quality Workgroup in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.).

DATES: May 3, 2007, from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Hubert H. Humphrey building (200 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 505A (please bring photo ID for 
entry to a Federal building).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/quality.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Workgroup will continue its discussion 
on how health information technology can provide the data needed for 
the development of quality measures that are useful to patients and 
others in the health care industry, automate the measurement and 
reporting of a comprehensive current and future set of quality 
measures, and accelerate the use of clinical decision support that can 
improve performance on those quality measures.
    The meeting will be available via Web cast. For additional 
information, go to: http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/quality/quality_instruct.html.

    Dated: April 16, 2007.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. 07-2010 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 3
Federal Reserve Bank of: Philadelphia

## Filings received during the week ending October 22, 2005

|Filer                               | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                                
|----------------------------------- | ------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|First Wyoming Financial Corporation | * 3A1         | First Wyoming Financial Corporation, Wyoming, DE, to form a bank holding company by acquiring First National Bank of Wyoming, Wyoming, DE.                                                | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not available
|Newspaper:                          | Not available
|Federal Register:                   | Not available
|FULTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION        | * 3A5         | Fulton Financial Corporation, Lancaster, PA, to acquire 100% of the outstanding shares of Columbia Bancorp, Columbia, MD, and thereby indirectly acquire The Columbia Bank, Columbia, MD. | Newspaper:11/20/2005Federal Register:Not available   
|Newspaper:                          | 11/20/2005   
|Federal Register:                   | Not available

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



                        Independent Auditors' Consent



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8, No. 333-06123) of Sipex Corporation of our report dated February 3,
1995 except for Note 7, as to which the date is November 5, 1996 with respect
to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity (deficit)
and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 1994 included in the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996.



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 25, 1997



                                       44
EXHIBIT 10.14


Summary of Comprehensive Credit Facilities Agreement by and between Shenzhen BAK
Battery Co., Ltd. (the "Company") and Longgang Division,  Shenzhen Branch, China
Minsheng Bank ("China Minsheng Bank") dated as of January 14, 2004.

         The  contract  number  for this  agreement  is Year 2003 Shen  Longgang
Zong'e Zi NO.010. The contract term is January 14, 2004 to January 14, 2005, and
the amount of credit to be extended  by China  Minsheng  Bank is RMB  30,000,000
Yuan.  Under the agreement  China  Minsheng Bank is entitled to adjust or cancel
the credit and demand  immediate  payment of the loan if the Company's  business
operations  deteriorate  severely,  the Company  loses its business  reputation,
there is a dispute  between the Company and third party  creditors or there is a
major adjustment of the state monetary policy.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

In connection with the Quarterly Report of International Test Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Mike  Dramytinos,  President,  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  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB for the quarterly period ended
September  30,  2003  (the  "Periodic  Report") which this statement accompanies
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m  or  78o(d))  and

(2)      information  contained  in  the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of
International  Test  Systems,  Inc.



Dated: November 19, 2003

                           /s/ Mike Dramytinos
                         ---------------------
                           Mike Dramytinos


A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.