alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mendelson, Appellant, *v.*Shrager.

*384Argued October 10, 1968.

Before Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*Edward G. Leclcey,*with him *Robert E. KUne,*for appellant.

*Vincent J. Grogan,*with him *Duff, Grogan & Doyle,*for appellee.

November 27, 1968:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Plaintiff-appellant and defendant-appellee are both members of the Allegheny County Bar. The agreement by which appellant employed appellee provided among other things that: “. . . All disputes arising under this agreement shall be submitted to arbitration before an arbitrator • selected by the President of the Allegheny County Bar Association, the decision of the arbitrator to be final and conclusive as to all matters of fact and law.”

A dispute arose between the parties and appellee terminated his employment with appellant, whereupon *385a complaint in equity was filed by appellant which, among other things, sought to require submission of the dispute relative to the division of certain fees to arbitration. Appellee filed preliminary objections maintaining that an equity court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, and that there was a full and complete remedy at law by resorting to an action in assumpsit. The lower court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint, holding that one of the parties (in this case the appellee) may unilaterally revoke the agreement to arbitrate. We reverse.

We have held on numerous occasions that a submission to arbitration is not revocable when it is part of a contract containing other terms to be performed by the parties. “. . . a submission is not revocable when it is a part of a contract containing other terms to be performed by the parties, especially where those terms have been wholly or partly executed, or where it partakes of the nature of a contract by which important rights reciprocally are gained and lost, and of which the submission is the moving consideration.” Standard Pennsylvania Practice, Ch. 49, §56, pp.490-91 (1964 ed.). See cases cited therein at n.19.

Settlement of disputes by arbitration are no longer deemed contrary to public policy. In fact, our statutes encourage arbitration and with our dockets crowded and in some jurisdictions congested arbitration is favored by the courts.

Contracts that provide for arbitration are valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist in law or in equity for the revocation of any other type of contract. This is equally true, of both common law arbitration and the. arbitration provided in the Act of 1927.

*386The action of the lower court is reversed, preliminary objections are dismissed and the complaint reinstated, and the record remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.
Exhibit 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, James Hurley, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of TechAlt, Inc.;

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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
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
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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.

March 30, 2005


/s/ James Hurley
-----------------------
James Hurley
Chief Financial Officer
No. 58064.

protests 201411-K, etc. (New York).

#### Melchers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “T. D. 53159 Clean Content” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8184 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8184

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the scheduled 
   reduction in the deduction for foreign-derived intangible income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2024

Mrs. Steel (for herself and Mr. Morelle) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the scheduled 
   reduction in the deduction for foreign-derived intangible income.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Growing and Preserving Innovation in 
America Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SCHEDULED REDUCTION IN THE DEDUCTION FOR FOREIGN-
              DERIVED INTANGIBLE INCOME.

    (a) In General.--Section 250(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and all that follows and 
inserting ``paragraph (1)(B) shall be applied by substituting `37.5 
percent' for `50 percent'.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 60909.

#### DeWitt Equipment Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 281281-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of machine tools; that they are multipurpose machine vises and spare parts therefor; and that said multipurpose machine vises are not hand tools and are composed wholly of metal and used exclusively to hold metal material, which is to be worked upon by a power-driven tool, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT OF


AMENDED AND RESTATED PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT




This Thirteenth Amendment of the Amended and Restated Participation Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of this 1st day of September, 2010, by and between and Union Bank and Trust Company, a Nebraska banking corporation and trust company, solely in its capacity as trustee of various grantor trusts known as Short Term Federal Investment Trusts or other grantor trusts (“Union Bank”) and National Education Loan Network, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Nelnet”).





WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into that certain Amended and Restated Participation Agreement dated as of June 1, 2001, as amended (the “Agreement”), and the parties hereto wish to amend the Agreement under the terms set forth herein.





NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:





1.           Definitions.  Unless otherwise expressly stated herein, capitalized terms in this Amendment shall have the same meanings given to them in the Agreement.





2.           Applicability to Affiliates.  All of Nelnet’s rights, duties and obligations hereunder shall apply in all respects to its parent, Nelnet, Inc., and any and all direct or indirect subsidiaries thereof, which shall include but not limit the right of such affiliates of Nelnet to transfer participations to Union Bank.





3.           Effect of Amendment.  This Amendment shall be effective as of the date first set forth above. Unless expressly modified or amended by this Amendment, all terms and provision contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without modification.






Union Bank and Trust Company, as Trustee

National Education Loan Network, Inc.By:
/s/ Tom Sullivan

By:
/s/ Terry HeimesTitle:
Vice President


Chief Financial Officer
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

INVENTOR HOLDINGS, L LC, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

BED BATH & BEYOND, INC., Defendant

- Appellee

______________________

2015

- 1988

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 1:14

- cv

- 00448

- GMS, Judge Gregory M. Sleet.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

R ICHARD C HARLES W EINBLATT , Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

D AVID B RANDON C ONRAD , Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX, argued for defendant -appellee. Also repr esented by R ICARDO B ONILLA

, N E IL J. M C N ABNAY ; J OHN A.
D RAGSETH , Minneapolis, MN.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (W ALLACH

, P LAGER

, and H UGHES

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 7, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Date Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 3, 

2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00149-CR

KALLUPPE DJUAN ALLEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No. 6

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1902878

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal in this case, signed by 

appellant, has been filed with this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this 

Court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant's request.

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the Clerk of the 

Court to issue the mandate of the Court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Brown.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
**Exhibit 32**

**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 Quarterly Report of Prospero Minerals Corp. (“Prospero”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Hubert L. Pinder, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to s.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 Prospero.

*By:/s/ Hubert L. Pinder*     

    

Mr.  Hubert L. Pinder  Chief Financial Officer

July 17 2008
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 14-399V 

(Not to be published) 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 * 

DANIELLE N. MEYER, * 

 * Filed: December 1, 2015 

 Petitioner, * 

 * Decision by Stipulation; Attorney’s 

 v. * Fees & Costs 

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND * 

HUMAN SERVICES, * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 * 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Gregory F. Coleman, Greg Coleman Law, PC, Knoxville, TN, for Petitioner 

Linda Renzi, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent 

ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS DECISION1

On May 9, 2014, Danielle Meyer filed a petition seeking compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On September 29, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation 

detailing an amount to be awarded to Petitioner. I subsequently issued a decision finding the 

parties’ stipulation to be reasonable and granting Petitioner the award outlined by the stipulation. 

On December 1, 2015, counsel for both parties filed another joint stipulation, this time in 

regards to attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner’s counsel should 

receive a lump sum of $56,000.00, in the form of a check payable to Petitioner and Petitioner’s 

counsel. This amount represents a sum to which Respondent does not object. In addition, and in 

 

1

 Because this decision contains a reasoned explanation for my action in this case, I will post this decision on the 

United States Court of Federal Claims’ website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-

347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 2002) (current version at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 (2014)). As provided by 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4)(B), however, the parties may object to the posted decision’s inclusion of certain kinds of 

confidential information. Specifically, under Vaccine Rule 18(b), each party has 14 days within which to request 

redaction “of any information furnished by that party: (1) that is a trade secret or commercial or financial in substance 

and is privileged or confidential; or (2) that includes medical files or similar files, the disclosure of which would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.” Vaccine Rule 18(b). Otherwise, the whole decision will be 

available to the public. (Id.) 
compliance with General Order No. 9, Petitioner has represented that she did not incur any 

reimbursable costs in proceeding on this petition. 

I approve the requested amount for attorney’s fees and costs as reasonable. Accordingly, 

an award should be made in the form of a check in the amount of $56,000.00 payable jointly to 

Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel, Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. In the absence of a motion for 

review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGMENT

in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ Brian H. Corcoran

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Special Master 

 

2

 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties may expedite entry of judgment by filing a joint notice renouncing their

right to seek review.
#### THEODORE D. PARSONS AND A. CHESTER CONROW, SURVIVING EXECUTORS, *ETC.,*PLAINTIFFS - RESPONDENTS, v. JOAN C. CONROW, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, v. FLORENCE WORTHLEY, *ET ALS.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

*Messrs. Carton, Nary, Witt & Arvanitis*and *Mr. Henry E. Hordes*for the petitioners.

*Messrs. Clapp & Eisenberg, Mr. Louis M. Drazin*and *Mr. Arnold H. Mytelka*for the defendant-respondent.

January 16, 1968.

Denied.
#### Katherine A. Smith, Appellant, v Kathryn Collins, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 401]

—In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered August 4, 1994, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The alleged defamatory statements were made by the defendant while acting in the discharge of her duties within the scope of her employment. Accordingly, the plaintiff was

*519required to serve a notice of claim prior to commencement of the action, and her failure to do so justified dismissal of the action *(see,*Education Law § 3813 [2]; *Agins v Darmstadter,*153 AD2d 600). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.1







THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


March 31, 2015


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Adelante REIT Growth and Income
Trust, Series 6


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Adelante REIT Growth and Income Trust, Series 6 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on March 30, 2015, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the
Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-201849) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO________________


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4998]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,918; TA-W-60,918A]


Bosal Industries Georgia, a Subsidiary of Bosal International 
North America Lavonia, GA and Bosal Industries Tennessee, a Subsidiary 
of Bosal International North America, Columbia, TN; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 8, 2007 in response to a 
petition filed by a Company Official and on behalf of workers at Bosal 
Industries Georgia, a subsidiary of Bosal International North America, 
Lavonia, Georgia (TA-W-60,918) and Bosal Industries Tennessee, a 
subsidiary of Bosal International North America, Columbia, Tennessee 
(TA-W-60,918A).
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of March, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-4998 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
(Reap. Dec. 9542)

#### Eugene Dietzgen Co., Inc. v. United States

Entry No. 714381.

(Decided November 16, 1959)

*Eugene R. Piclcrell*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawkence, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of certain drawing instruments and cases covered by the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement is before the court for determination.

The parties hereto have entered into the following stipulation of fact:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the Plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States that the items described herein below by catalog number consist of drawing instruments and cases which in the decision of *Keuffel é Esser Co.*vs *United States,*Abstract No. 59557, were held to be separately dutiable; that the cases and drawing instruments, in accordance with that decision, should be appraised separately instead of as an entirety; and that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the drawing instruments and cases covered by the above appeal for reappraisement at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Western Germany in usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States plus the cost of all containers and all coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in question packed ready for shipment to the United States was as set forth below; that the weight of the cases was as set forth below :

> Catalog No. Value of drawing instruments Value of cases Weight of case

> 1087 SO $3.42 $0.84 .550 lbs.

> 1086 SO 2.94 0.84 .570 lbs.

> 1087 S 3.29 0.84 .570 lbs.

> 1092 0.90 0.32 .285

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on or about the date of exportation of the said merchandise, such or similar merchandise was not *547freely offered for sale for lióme consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of Western Germany.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis for determining the value of the drawing instruments and cases in controversy and that said value is as tabulated in the above quoted stipulation.

As to all other merchandise, the appeal is dismissed.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 15, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2029

Lower Tribunal No. F95-3111B

________________

Mauricio Solorzano,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.

Mauricio Solorzano, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SCALES, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.