alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BARWOOD, INC., et al. *v.*GEORGI, et ux.

[No. 173,

September Term, 1968.]

*Decided April*1, *1969.*

*30The cause was argued before Hammond, C. J., and Barnes, McWilliams, Finan and Smith, JJ,

*Peter C. Andresen*for the appellants.

*Ralph R. Roach*and *C. Edward Nicholson*for the appellees.

Per Curiam.

This appeal stems from a collision, in the late afternoon of 24 September 1965, between a taxicab and a Volkswagen station wagon (the VW) at the intersection of Connecticut Avenue and Newlands Street in Montgomery County about one-half mile north of the District line. The appellee Georgi was northbound in the VW on Connecticut Avenue in the lane next to the grass median strip. Traffic was heavy and it was raining. As he approached Newlands Street he saw the taxicab owned b)' the appellant Barwood, Inc. (Barwood), waiting in the crossover. It had crossed the three southbound lanes. Triantis, its driver, intended to continue on across the three northbound lanes. When Georgi was “one-half car length” from the crossover Triantis “jutted in front” of him. The collision, said Georgi, was unavoidable.

The.trial before Mathias, J., and a jury resulted in verdicts against both appellants, $46.50 in favor of Georgi and $5,500 in favor of his wife. Upon the denial of a motion for a new trial both Barwood and Triantis appealed from the ensuing judgments.

The first error assigned by the appellants arises out of the trial judge’s instruction to the jury that there was “no evidence to indicate” contributory negligence on the part of Georgi. Georgi was the favored driver and in the circumstances here present he was not bound to anticipate a negligent act or omission on the part of Triantis. *See Thompson v. Terry,*245 Md. 480, 487, 226 A. 2d 540 (1967); *Dunnill v. Bloomberg, 228*Md. 230, 235, 179 A. 2d 371 (1962); *Hickory Transfer Co. v.*
      *31Nezbed, 202 Md. 253, 261, 96 A. 2d 241 (1953). Beyond this we think it suffices to say that the record amply supports Judge Mathias’ instruction.

Appellants next complain that the refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict in their favor on the question of agency amounts to error. Despite Barwood’s contention that it had successfully rebutted the presumption of agency there was in the record, nevertheless, evidence sufficient, we think, to support a finding of agency. Judge Mathias properly left to the jury the determination of the issue.

The final complaint of appellants has to do with the court’s instruction in respect of damages. Oddly enough Judge Mathias’ instruction was more favorable to the appellants than the instruction they themselves requested. In any event they did not except to the instruction given by the court and Maryland Rule 554 e precludes our consideration of their complaint. Judge Mathias’ comment to counsel is of interest:

> “Now, I am addressing my remarks to counsel for the defendant [appellants]. State whether or not you take any exceptions to the charge that has been given to the jury.”

In response counsel discussed contributory negligence and agency but made no mention whatever of damages.

*Judgments affirmed.*

*Costs to be paid by appellants.*
O rder filed October 2 7 , 2016

In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 1 6

- 00 177

- C V

__________ KERWIN STEPHENS; THU NDERBIRD OIL & GAS, LLC; THUNDERBIRD RESOURCE S, LLC; THUNDERBIRD LAND SERVICES, LLC; STEPH ENS & MYERS, LLP; AN D CHESTER

CARROLL , Appellants

V.
THREE FINGER BLACK S HALE PARTNERSHIP; TREK RESOURCES, INC.; TIB URON LAND & CATTLE, L.P.; L.W. HUNT RESOURCES, LLC; AND RICHARD RAUGHTON , Appellees

——— and

——— L.W. HUNT RESOURCES, LLC AND RICHARD RAUG HTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTERES T OF ARAPAHO ENERGY, LLC, Cross

- Appellants

V. KERWIN STEPHENS; THU NDERBIRD OIL & GAS, LLC; THUNDERBIRD RESOURCE S, LLC; THUNDERBIRD LAND2

SERVICES, LLC; STEPH ENS & MYERS, LLP; AND CHES TER

CARROLL , Cross

- Appellees

On Appeal from the 32nd District Court

Fisher County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 2013

- 0016

O R D E R On September 15, 2016, this court issued an order in which we granted a temporary stay of the enforcement and execution of the underlying judgment against Appellants Kerwin Stephens and Thunderbird Resources, LLC so that Stephens and
Thunderbird Resources could file a motion to review pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

. We received their motion on October 11, 2016. On this day, October 2 7 , 2016, we have denied the motion to review. Accordingly, we hereby dissolve the temporar y stay entered by this court on September 15, 2016.

PER CURIAM

October 2 7 , 2016 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J ., and Bailey, J

.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 Certificate
of Chief Executive Officer
 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 on Form 10-Q of American Surgical Holdings,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Zak
Elgamal, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:
  1.      The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2.      The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition at the end of the period covered by the Report and
result of operations of the Company for the period covered by the
Report.
  /s/ Zak
Elgamal
 Zak
Elgamal
 Chief
Executive Officer
  April 30,
2010
  This
certificate accompanies this Report pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
EX-32.1



Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



INFe- HUMAN RESOURCES, INC. 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 INFe- Human Resources, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending August 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur Viola, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of INFe- Human Resources, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of INFe-Human Resources, Inc.



/s/    ARTHUR VIOLA

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

Arthur Viola



Chief Executive Officer

Sole Director

and Chief Financial Officer



October 24, 2006
PUBLIC LAW 111–319—DEC. 18, 2010 124 STAT. 3457 

Public Law 111–319 

111th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to the applicability of identity 

theft guidelines to creditors. 

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 ‘‘Red Flag Program Clarification 

Act of 2010’’. 

SEC. 2. SCOPE OF CERTAIN CREDITOR REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) AMENDMENT TO FCRA.—Section 615(e) of the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681m(e)) is amended by adding at the 

end the following: 

‘‘(4) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this subsection, the term 

‘creditor’— 

‘‘(A) means a creditor, as defined in section 702 of 

the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691a), that 

regularly and in the ordinary course of business— 

‘‘(i) obtains or uses consumer reports, directly or 

indirectly, in connection with a credit transaction; 

‘‘(ii) furnishes information to consumer reporting 

agencies, as described in section 623, in connection 

with a credit transaction; or 

‘‘(iii) advances funds to or on behalf of a person, 

based on an obligation of the person to repay the 

funds or repayable from specific property pledged by 

or on behalf of the person; 

‘‘(B) does not include a creditor described in subparagraph (A)(iii) that advances funds on behalf of a person 

for expenses incidental to a service provided by the creditor 

to that person; and 

‘‘(C) includes any other type of creditor, as defined 

in that section 702, as the agency described in paragraph 

(1) having authority over that creditor may determine 

appropriate by rule promulgated by that agency, based 

on a determination that such creditor offers or maintains 

accounts that are subject to a reasonably foreseeable risk 

of identity theft.’’. 

15 USC 1601 

note. 

Red Flag 

Program 

Clarification Act 

of 2010. 

Dec. 18, 2010 

[S. 3987] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
124 STAT. 3458 PUBLIC LAW 111–319—DEC. 18, 2010 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3987: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010): 

Nov. 30, considered and passed Senate. 

Dec. 7, considered and passed House. 

Æ 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section 

shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act. 

Approved December 18, 2010. 

15 USC 1681m 

note. 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAW
May 28, 2015

Mr. Paul Olsen

128 Brookhollow Road Mountain Top, PA 18707

Dear Mr. Olsen:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 20, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1072), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)







In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Southern Star Central Corp. (the Company), a Delaware corporation, for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, Jerry L. Morris, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Susanne W. Harris, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, 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 as of and for the periods presented in the Report.



The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purpose.



|    |                       |                                                        |                 
|--- | --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ | ----------------
|    | Signature             | Title                                                  | Date            
|By: | /s/ Jerry L. Morris   | President and Chief Executive Officer                  | February 6, 2006
|    | Jerry L. Morris       |                                                        |                 
|By: | /s/ Susanne W. Harris | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer | February 6, 2006
|    | Susanne W. Harris     |                                                        |                 



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Southern Star Central Corp. and will be retained by Southern Star Central Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or staff upon request.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOHN DANIEL FLANAGAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-2277

[ July 6, 2017 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Glenn Kelley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2013-CF-011054-

AXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael 

Kaiman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, KLINGENSMITH, JJ., and METZGER, ELIZABETH A., Associate Judge, 

concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
19–008

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 108–7

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 18, MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2003

FEBRUARY 4, 2003.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 48]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 48, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of House Joint Resolution 18, making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal 

year 2003, and for other purposes, under a closed rule. The rule 

provides one hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 

joint resolution. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit. 

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the joint 

resolution includes a waiver of Section 302(c) of the Congressional 

Budget Act (prohibiting consideration of a committee’s legislation 

providing new budget authority until that committee has filed its 

302(b) report). Although the continuing resolution abides by the 

302(b) allocations for fiscal year 2003, the waiver of Section 302(c) 

is technically necessary because the Appropriations Committee has 

not yet organized and 302(b) reports have not yet been filed in the 

108th Congress.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Triple Net Properties, LLC, the Managerof NNN 2003 Value Fund, LLC (the “Company”) herebycertifies, to his knowledge, that:          (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of    the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the    “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and           (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and    results of operations of the Company.     /s/ Kelly J. Caskey           Kelly J. Caskey *Chief Financial Officer*Date: August 24, 2005     A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provide to the Company and will beretained by the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.     The foregoing certification is being furnished with theCompany’s Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2005 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is notbeing filed for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral information language in such filing.
Before the First Division,

December 21, 1954

No. 58612.

protest 234134-K (Los Angeles).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of celluloid reindeer similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 56902, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### In the Matter of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Respondents, v Doris Elias, Appel*548lant.

[635 NYS2d 236]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award, in which a hearing was held to determine fair and reasonable attorneys’ fees, Doris Elias appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), entered November 10, 1993, which, *inter alia,*awarded her former law firm fees in the sum of $21,797.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Doris Elias retained the law firm of Seavey, Fingerit, Vogel, Oziel and Skoller (hereinafter Seavey Fingerit) to represent her at an arbitration concerning an underinsured motorist claim. Pursuant to a written retainer agreement, Seavey Fingerit was to receive one-third of any award. Ultimately, the arbitration resulted in an award to Elias in the amount of $65,000 *(see, Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Elias,*221 AD2d 547 [decided herewith]). However, before the award was confirmed, differences arose between the parties which resulted in the termination of Seavey Fingerit’s representation of Elias and the selection of substitute counsel. Indeed, the arbitration award was confirmed while Elias was being represented by new counsel. After a two-day hearing to determine the fair and reasonable value of Seavey Fingerit’s services, at which Elias raised a variety of arguments for the reduction or denial of a fee, the court awarded Seavey Fingerit the amount of $21,797. We now affirm.

When counsel is discharged or substituted for without cause prior to the completion of representation, counsel is entitled to compensation in quantum meruit, whether that amount is more or less than the agreed-upon fee *(see, Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co.,*73 NY2d 454; *Ashker v International Bus. Mach. Corp.,*201 AD2d 765; *Hovanec Bldrs. & Developers Corp. v Hines,*173 AD2d 951; *Wald v Wald,*170 AD2d 669; *Theroux v Theroux,*145 AD2d 625). Here, we agree with the hearing court’s implicit finding that the substitution was without cause and find, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, that the amount awarded represented a fair and reasonable recovery in quantum meruit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
#### People, Respondent, v Patrice Robinson, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 583]

—Motion to expand the judgment roll and for permission to file and serve a *pro se*supplemental brief denied. Memorandum: Issues raised on direct appeal must be a matter of record. If there is a dispute concerning the contents of the record, a motion to settle the record before the trial court *(see,*22 NYCRR 1000.5 [g] [2]) must be made. A defendant who seeks to raise an issue that is outside the record must raise it within the context of a CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment. Defendant’s motion to file a *pro se*supplemental brief is premature because defendant’s assigned counsel has not filed and served the principal brief in this appeal *(see,*22 NYCRR 1000.5 [g] [1]). Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 Boston Capital Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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 Fund.



|                 |  |                        
|---------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date:            |  |                        
|December 6, 2005 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal       
|                 |  |                        
|                 |  | Marc N. Teal           
|                 |  | Chief Financial Officer
|                 |  |                        
|                 |  |                        



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.