alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kaplon-Belo Associates, Inc., Respondent, v Pat Farrelly et al., Appellants.

[633 NYS2d 522]

—In an action to recover a real estate brokerage commission, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Savarese, J.H.O.), dated March 11, 1994, which, after a non-jury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of $48,204.40.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants’ contention that the plaintiff real estate broker is not entitled to its full commission because it violated its fiduciary duty to the defendants by producing a tenant financially unable to meet the terms of the lease is without merit. "It is well settled that absent an agreement to the contrary, a real estate broker earns his commission when he produces a party who is ready, willing and able to purchase or lease on the terms set by the seller lessor” *(Holzer v Robbins,*141 AD2d 505, 506). Since the defendants negotiated and subsequently entered into a lease with the tenant produced by the plaintiff, the subsequent default by the tenant shortly after the lease was entered into does not affect the broker’s right to recover a commission pursuant to the brokerage agreement *(see, Sauerhoff-Kessler Realty Corp. v Roma Shopping Plaza,*201 AD2d 477; *Agency, Broad & Cornelia St. v Lavigne,*97 AD2d 934).

Furthermore, after reviewing the evidence presented at the *322trial, we find that the trial court correctly determined that the individual defendant Pat Farrelly was personally liable for the plaintiffs commission under the brokerage agreement. It is well settled that an agent for an undisclosed or unidentified principal is individually liable on a contract signed by the agent without disclosing his agency *(see, Rennert-Diana & Co. v Costarino,*128 AD2d 691). Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 28, 2014

s0224 

# Order

Clerk February 28, 2014

148014 & (29)(30)

PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148014

COA: 315897

Saginaw CC: 10

- 034589

- FC

SEAN MICHAEL RYAN

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 1 , 2013

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The

motion to remand and the motion for appointment of counsel ar e DENIED.
No. 61872.

#### Clarence S. Holmes et al. *v.*United States,

protests 225282-K, etc. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of yellow cedar the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Border Brokerage Co. et al.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 179, C. D. 1923), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

November 7, 1951

No. 55985.

protest 661449-G (Pembina).

#### Caradine Hat Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 52622.

petition 6496-R (Los Angeles).

#### William Prentiss, Jr., as Trustee in Bankruptcy of National Merchandise Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Prom the testimony it appeared that prior to filing the entries herein the customs broker submitted the invoices to the examiner; that the invoice values were the purchase prices of the merchandise, but that the merchandise could not be made up for a period of 5 or 6 months; that when it was shipped, ther.e was a higher value on it; that entry was made at the invoice value because the appraiser did not have any value; that the appraised values represented the market values upon the dates of exportation, as distinguished from the market values on the dates of purchase; that the issue as to whether goods are dutiable at their purchase price when it takes a period of time to manufacture them, or at the quotations on the date of exportation, was settled by the courts *[White Lamb Finlay, Inc.*v. *United States,*29 C. C. P. A. 199, C. A. D. 192] subsequent to the filing of these entries and appeals for reappraisement; and that such appeals were abandoned after the decision above referred to had been rendered. Although the entries in the instant case appeared to have been based upon an erroneous conception of the law, the evidence did not indicate that there was any intent to deceive the appraiser or defraud the revenue. The petition was therefore granted.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel Sheng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities   Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated:  July 6, 2011
By:
/s/ Samuel ShengSamuel ShengChief Financial Officer

(principal financial and accounting officer)
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of International Monetary Systems, Ltd. ("Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), I, David A. Powell, Interim Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ David A. Powell
 David A. Powell
  (Principal Financial Officer)
 
 March 11, 2011
 
 
 
 This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. 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.
Part II, Section A, Item 1(d) Operation Process Description –Processing 

#1 Tank Charges 

 

 #2 Sampling & Testing

 #3 Drum or Tote Fill

 #4 Cleanup
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KAMERON TODD MYERS, a/k/a Casper, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-5028

(D.C. No. 4:19-CR-00154-CVE-1)

(N.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HARTZ and EID, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Kameron Todd Myers pleaded guilty to carjacking and associated firearms 

offenses pursuant to a plea agreement with the government under Federal Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated to a 

sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release. At the 

sentencing hearing, the district court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced 

Mr. Myers to 14 years’ imprisonment but imposed five-year terms of supervised 

released on two of the firearms counts. 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 14, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court
2

Mr. Myers appealed, challenging his sentence. The government then filed a 

motion to enforce the waiver of appellate rights contained in the plea agreement. The

parties have since filed a joint motion to remand to the district court for resentencing. 

In the joint motion, the government and Mr. Myers agree that the district court 

plainly erred in imposing a supervised release term other than was agreed upon in the 

Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) (stating that the 

sentencing recommendation or request contained in the plea agreement “binds the 

court once the court accepts the plea agreement”). The government also states in the 

motion that “it does not seek to enforce the waiver to the extent it applies to the error 

as to the length of supervised release.” Joint Mot. to Remand at 3. 

Consequently, we grant the parties’ joint motion to remand, vacate the 

judgment, and remand to the district court for resentencing. The motion to enforce 

the appeal waiver and motion for stay are denied as moot.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN LYNN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2126 LKK PAN P

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner without counsel, has filed this application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On August 9, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Respondent

has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-02126-ALA Document 19 Filed 09/26/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 9, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. Respondent’s February 18, 2005, motion to dismiss is denied, petitioner’s

January 24, 2005, motion to stay this action is denied and respondent is directed to file and serve

an answer to the petition within thirty days.

DATED: September 23, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/lynn2126.805

Case 2:04-cv-02126-ALA Document 19 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 51440.

#### Protests 869734-G, etc., of Allied Stores Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2007304EN.01001101.xml

| 15.12.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/11

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 429th meeting of 9 July 2007 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/E-2/39.143 — Opel

(2007/C 304/10)

| 1. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the practices described in the draft decision, the agreements entered into between General Motors Europe and its authorised Opel/Vauxhall service partners are liable to raise competition concerns on the motor vehicle aftermarkets. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the practices described in the draft decision, the agreements entered into between General Motors Europe and its authorised Opel/Vauxhall service partners are liable to raise competition concerns on the motor vehicle aftermarkets.

| 2. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the proceedings in this case can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). |
| --- | --- |

2.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that the proceedings in this case can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1).

1

| 3. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the commitments offered by General Motors Europe, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that in the light of the commitments offered by General Motors Europe, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 4. | The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that General Motors Europe should be bound by the commitments until 31 May 2010. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The members of the Advisory Committee agree with the Commission that General Motors Europe should be bound by the commitments until 31 May 2010.

| 5. | The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The members of the Advisory Committee ask the Commission to take into account all the other points raised during the discussion.

| 6. | The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The members of the Advisory Committee recommend the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---

(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.

1

---
No. 58588.

protests 208887-K, etc. (New York).

#### Canada Dry Ginger Ale, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 130, C. A. D. 508) and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel Sheng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities   Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





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.





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.





Date:               July 6, 2011
By:
/s/ Samuel ShengSamuel Sheng

Chief Financial Officer

(principal financial and accounting officer)
EX-10.13



 Exhibit 10.13 

ADDENDUM TO 
 ASSET
PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 This Addendum to the Asset Purchase Agreement, dated May 30, 2014 (the “Agreement”)
between by and between CIDARA THERAPEUTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation (f/k/a K2 Therapeutics, Inc., the “Purchaser”), and SEACHAID
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a Delaware corporation (“Seller”) is entered into as of September 23, 2014, but shall be deemed effective as of May 30, 2014 (the “Effective
Date”). Each capitalized term used but not defined in this Addendum has the same meaning given to such term in the Agreement. 

BACKGROUND 

A. Pursuant to the Agreement, Purchaser purchased from Seller the Purchased Assets, including the Program Technology, Transferred Agreements,
certain of the Seller’s interest in Program Therapy material, excluding the Excluded Assets. 
 B. Purchaser and Seller intended that
the Program IP included in the Program Technology purchased by Purchaser include all Intellectual Property Rights and other proprietary rights related to the Program Therapy other than specified patent applications and patents listed on Schedule 2.2
of the Seller Disclosure Schedules. 
 C. The provisional patents listed on Annex 1 to this Addendum were intended by the parties to be
included in the Purchased Assets and were inadvertently excluded from the Program Patents listed on Schedule I to the Agreement. 
 Therefore, intending to
be legally bound, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows: 
 AGREEMENT 

 

	1.	Schedule I to the Agreement is amended to include the provisional patents listed on Annex 1 to this Addendum. 

  

	2.	Schedule 3.5(a) to the Seller Disclosure Schedule is amended to include the provisional patents listed on Annex 1 to this Addendum. 


 

	3.	Concurrently with the execution of this Addendum, Purchaser and Seller shall execute and deliver a Patent Assignment, a form of which is attached hereto as Annex 2 (the “Additional Patent
Assignment”), evidencing the additional assignment by Seller of the provisional patents listed on Annex 1 hereto. The effective date of the Additional Patent Assignment shall be deemed to be May 30, 2014. 


 

	4.	The definition of “Transaction Documents” in the Agreement shall be amended to include the Additional Patent Assignment. 









	5.	Except as expressly amended by this Addendum, all terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Addendum as of the Effective Date set forth above. 

 

									
	CIDARA THERAPEUTICS, INC.	 		 	SEACHAID PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Kevin Forrest
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Steve Elms

	Name:	 	 Kevin Forrest
	 		 	Name:	 	 Steve Elms

	Title:	 	 COO
	 		 	Title:	 	 CEO
**Exhibit 32.01**

**CERTIFICATION**

        Pursuantto the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), PaulL. Berns, the President and Chief Executive Officer of AllosTherapeutics, Inc., and David C. Clark, the Corporate Controller andTreasurer of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”), each hereby certifiesthat, to the best of his knowledge:

1.                                       TheCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period endedDecember 31, 2006, to which this Certification is attached asExhibit 32.01 (the “Annual Report”), fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                           |   | /s/ Paul L. Berns                            |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 12, 2007 |   | Paul L. Berns                                |
|                      |   | President and Chief Executive Officer        |
|                      |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                |
|                      |   |                                         |
|                      |   |                                         |
|                      |   | /s/ David C. Clark                           |
|                      |   | David C. Clark                               |
|                      |   | Corporate Controller and Treasurer           |
|                      |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

A signed original of this written statement has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. Thiscertification “accompanies” the Form 10-K to which it relates, is notdeemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after thedate of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.

 

----