alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Ten Two Ninety Realty Corp., Appellant, v Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Harriman, Respondent.

*[633*NYS2d 370]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Harriman, dated June 23, 1993, which, after a hearing, denied the application of the petitioner for a special permit to maintain two principal uses on one lot and for area variances, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Carey, J.), dated February 10, 1994, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering applications for permits and variances, and that judicial review is limited to determining whether the action taken by the board is illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion *(see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441, 444; *Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*40 NY2d 309). A zoning board’s determination will be sustained if it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley, supra,*at 444).

The record in this case clearly establishes that the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Harriman is not arbitrary and capricious, that it is rationally based on the Village of Harriman Code, Zoning Law Schedule of District Regulations, and the Village Law.

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00784-CR

Marcus Anthony Perkins, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 6 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CR-12-216472, HONORABLE BRANDY MUELLER, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

PER CURIAM

Appellant filed his notice of appeal on November 30, 2012, the clerk’s record was

filed January 2, 2013, and the reporter’s record was filed March 25, 2013. On August 9, after

appellant’s attorney failed to respond to a late-brief notice sent in May, we abated the appeal to the

trial court for a hearing pursuant to rule 38.8. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3). On October 3, we

received a supplemental record containing the trial court’s findings in which the court stated that

counsel said he had been unable to speak to appellant but that there was “no indication that

Mr. Perkins wished to abate the appeal, however.” We reinstated the case, and on February 13,

counsel informed us that he had still had no contact from appellant but that he would file a brief on

appellant’s behalf; March 17 was set as the brief deadline. On March 24, we sent counsel another

late-brief notice, asking for a response by April 3. On April 14, counsel called to inform us that he
would be filing a motion for extension of time by April 18. To date, the brief has not been tendered,

and a motion for extension of time has not been filed.

Because we do not have a trial-court finding that appellant no longer wishes to

prosecute his appeal, we may not proceed to consider the appeal without briefing. See id.

R. 38.8(b)(4) (appellate court “may consider the appeal without briefs” if trial court determines that

appellant “no longer desires to prosecute the appeal”). We thus must abate the appeal once again. 

See id. R. 38.8(b)(2) (if brief is not timely filed, appellate court “must order the trial court to

immediately conduct a hearing to determine whether the appellant desires to prosecute his appeal,

whether the appellant is indigent, or, if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the

appeal, and to make appropriate findings and recommendations”). The trial court shall hold a

hearing pursuant to rule 38.8 on or before June 2, 2014, and shall determine whether appellant

wishes to abandon his appeal and, if not (or if it is unclear), the date by which counsel will file

appellant’s brief. Should counsel fail to file a brief by that date, we will institute contempt

proceedings against him. See id. R. 38.8(b)(4) (based on trial court’s findings and recommendations,

appellate court “may act appropriately to ensure that the appellant’s rights are protected, including

initiating contempt proceedings against appellant’s counsel”).

It is ordered May 2, 2014.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

Abated and Remanded

Filed: May 2, 2014

Do Not Publish

2
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHN R. LOMIK, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

14 USCMA 344, 34 CMR 124

No. 17,216

January 3, 1964

*Colonel Joseph L. Chalk, Captain Charles W. Schiesser,*and *Captain Robert E. Shepherd, Jr.,*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Francis M. Cooper*and *First Lieutenant Barrie G. Sullivan, II,*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per curiam:

The decision of the board of review is affirmed. United States v Baker, 14 USCMA 311, 34 CMR 91.
#### United States *v.*American Express Co.

No. 7311.

Invoice dated London, England, February 21, 1941.

Certified February 21, 1941.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 24, 1941.

Entry No. 758174.

(Decided June 26, 1947)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Cole, Judge:

This appeal for r eappr ais emeu t concerns items of woven wool outerwear exported from London, England, and entered at the port of New York.

An agreed set of facts, upon which the case is before me, shows export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement for the merchandise in question, and that such statutory value is the “unit invoice values, plus $2 for wool cuttings, shown by red ink notations on the consular invoice.”

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tessera Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Henry R. Nothhaft, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/    Henry R. Nothhaft             
|Henry R. Nothhaft                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|November 2, 2009                     

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tessera
Technologies, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Michael Anthofer, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Michael Anthofer                             
|Michael Anthofer                                    
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|November 2, 2009                                    

A signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### State, *ex rel.*Claude T. Bearden, v. C. B. Pearson, as Sheriff of Sarasota County.

182 So. 233.

Opinion Filed June 17, 1938.

*Paul C. Albritton,*for Petitioner;

No appearance contra.

Buford, J.

This is an original proceeding in habeas corpus.

*879The petitioner is held by the respondent under- a judgment in contempt, as follows:

“This cause coming on to be heard this 12th day of April, A. D. 1938, upon testimony of the complainant’s solicitor wherein the herein named defendant has failed to comply with the Court Order requiring the defendant ^to pay to the complainant the sum of $8.50 per week; and it appearing to the Court that the herein named defendant is now in the arrears in his weekly payment to the complainant in the sum of $45.00.

“It Is, Therefore, Ordered and Decreed that the said Claude T. Bearden shall be confined in the Sarasota County jail for a period of______days, or until the said Claude T. Bearden shall purge himself for contempt of the Court for his failure to comply with the Court Order entered in this cause.”

The judgment is fatally defective because it condemns the petitioner to imprisonment for an indefinite and indeterminate period. See State, *ex rel.*Trazevant, v. McLeod, 126 Fla. 229, 170 Sou. 735.

It is therefore ordered and adjudged that petitioner be discharged without prejudice to the Circuit Court to enter such other and further legal judgment as may be required to meet the requirements of the law.

So ordered.

Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
#### In the Matter of Glens Falls Insurance Company, Respondent, v Karin Smith, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 395]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated April 20, 1994, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*530The record establishes that the appellant prejudiced the petitioner’s subrogation rights by signing a general release in favor of the tortfeasor *(see, Weinberg v Transamerica Ins. Co.,*62 NY2d 379; *Matter of State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v Zyburo,*215 AD2d 566). The petition to stay arbitration provided a sufficient and timely notice of disclaimer on this ground *(see, e.g., Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Jiminez],*78 NY2d 1054; *Matter of State Farm Ins. Co. v Velasquez,*211 AD2d 636). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petitioner’s application to permanently stay arbitration of the appellant’s claim for underinsured motorist benefits.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or academic in light of our determination. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          62,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,852,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   923,000
<INVENTORY>                                 21,465,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      39,462,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 742,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              98,573,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        73,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,154,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                98,573,000
<SALES>                                      8,165,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,165,000
<CGS>                                       28,008,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               49,379,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,337,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (41,969,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (41,969,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (41,969,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.84)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.18

                         [TASER INTERNATIONAL(R) LOGO]


     7339 East Evans Road - Scottsdale, AZ - 85280 - USA - (480) 991-0791 -
                               Fax (480) 991-0791


                        AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE(S)

Note Balance: __________
City/State: Scottsdale, Arizona
Date of Amendment: 3/30/01

          This Amendment No. __ to the Original Loans and Security Agreement
(this "Amendment") is made as of March 30, 2001 by and between TASER
International Inc. ("Borrower") and _____________ ("Lender").

          Borrower and Lender are parties to, among other documents, a
Promissory Note agreement as of ______ (date of initial investment). Borrower
and Lender desire to amend the Promissory Notes in accordance with the following
terms.

          NOW THEREFORE, Borrower and Lender agree as follows:

          4.   The Maturity Dates are hereby amended to July 1, 2002. With an
               additional provision that the company may at its discretion,
               extend the maturity date 2 consecutive terms of 12 months each to
               cover working capital shortfalls.

Unless otherwise defined, all other terms specified in the Promissory Notes
shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date
above written.

Borrower:                               Lender:

TASER International Inc.




By: /s/ Patrick W. Smith
    _____________________               ____________________

Name: Patrick W. Smith                  Name:
#### East Coast Printing Equipment Corp. et al. v. Dataprint et al.

Superior Court, Middlesex, SS

No. 961439C

Memorandum Dated January 11, 2001

Burnes, J.

After a jury-waived trial on the plaintiffs’ G.L.c. 93A claim, the court found for the plaintiff and trebled the damages. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys fees and have now petitioned for those fees. The court has reviewed the petition and considered the filings of the parties. Both parties have correctly stated the standard to be applied in evaluating the request. The court’s principal task, therefore, is to evaluate the petition to determine if the request is reasonable.

The plaintiffs have applied the lodestar calculus and have made appropriate adjustments in the request for fees, in acknowledgment of their failure to succeed on a number of the initial claims and on the assault claim. The plaintiffs have, however, requested fees for time spent waiting for the court (which is, unfortunately, not productive time), time spent reviewing routine notices from the court and deposition notices (scheduling dates), and for the preparation for and hearing on the request for a pre-trial attachment (which was not successful). The court will reduce the request for fees by the amounts sought for these activities. The court will also take a further ten percent reduction because, although some reduction has already been taken, the G.L. c. 93A claim did not predominate until late in the game. The result of these adjustments is to reduce the fees requested by $2,710.25. The costs appear to be entirely in order.

*ORDER*

Based on the review of the petition and the filings of the parties, the court awards the plaintiffs $36,014.40 in attorneys fees and $1,407.15 in costs for a total award of $37,421.55.
No. 45032.

#### Protests 787697-G (B), etc., of Edward L. Eyre & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
No. 38918.

#### Protests 860691-G, etc., of Bata Shoe Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *United States*v. *Field*(25 C. C. P. A. 308, T. D. 49422) and *Anniston*v. *Davis*(301 U. S. 337) the protests were dismissed.
6783

#### McDOWELL v. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

*Ruled by case of Amos*v. *Western Union Tel. Co.,*post, 259.

Before Purdy, J., Spartanburg,

May, 1907.

Affirmed.

Action by W. A. McDowell against Western Union Telegraph' Company. Prom judgment for defendant on verdict ordered by Court, plaintiff appeals.

*Mr. Stanyarne Wilson,*for appelant,

cites: 70 S'. C., 422; 77 S. C., 179.

*Mr. George H. Fearons*'and *John Gary Fvcms,*contra.

Argument reported in Amos case.

*258March *2,*1908.

The opinion of the Court was. delivered by

Mr. Justice Gary.

This is an action for damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s failure to deliver promptly the following message, delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant at Louisville, Ky., to be transmitted to Asa Smith, at Pacolet, S. C.: “Collect money at bank. Sick at Gray Street Infirmary. Come.”

Asa Smith is the brother-in-lawl of the plaintiff, which fact was known to the defendant.

There are no allegations in the complaint that there were tender and affectionate relations existing between the plaintiff and his brother-in-law, nor was there any testimony tending to’ show that the defendant had notice of such relations.

When the plaintiff wias asked whether he had suffered mental anguish on account .of the failure to malee prompt delivery >of the telegram., the defendant’s attorney obj ected to the testimony.

In sustaining the objeotion, his Honor, the presiding judge, used this language: “If the telegraph agent at Paco let knew that 'he was a brother-in-law of the defendant, there is nothing in the telegram to notify the telegraph aigent that Mr. Smith was a close friend, or a personal friend, or oould be of any particular aid or comfort to the sick, or a man of peculiar skill, nor is there anything in. the telegram to notify the telegraph company that the sender of it, 'the plaintiff, was then contemplating undergoing an operation for appendicitis and especially needed the services of his brother-in-law. Nor is there anything to notify the telegraph company that he bad a peculiar skill to render peculiar assistance, and it seems to m|e, there is a fatal lack of notice -to. the telegraph company, from which, damages would! necessarily be inferred. I do not see howl this testimony can be. admissible under that state of facts.”

*259The presiding judge directed a -verdict for the defendant, and this ruling is assigned as error.

The ruling of the presiding judge is sustained -by the case of *Amos*v. *Tel.*Co., following.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.
<PAGE>


                                                                  Exhibit 32(b)

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

         In connection with the Form 10-KSB of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 2004, I, Lamont Thomas, Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1) such Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 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 such Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc.



/s/ Lamont Thomas
-----------------------------
Lamont Thomas
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

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

I,
Robert J. Zatta, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Rockwood
Specialties Group, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Rockwood Specialties
Group, Inc.

Date:
November 14, 2005

|/s/ROBERT J. ZATTARobert J. Zatta Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8257 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8257

  To prohibit the Secretary of the Army from implementing a withdrawn 
    rule relating to restricted access to the Washington Channel in 
                Washington, DC, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 6, 2024

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the Secretary of the Army from implementing a withdrawn 
    rule relating to restricted access to the Washington Channel in 
                Washington, DC, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Washington Channel Public Access 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE.

    The Secretary of the Army may not finalize, implement, or enforce 
the withdrawn rule entitled ``Washington Channel, Fort McNair, 
Washington, DC; Restricted Area'', published by the Department of the 
Army on December 29, 2020 (Docket No. COE-2019-0010; 85 Fed. Reg. 
85570), or any other rule that restricts public access to the 
Washington Channel in Washington, DC.
                                 <all>
```