alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bryan M. Gleason et al. v. Can-Four Corporation

Superior Court, Norfolk, SS

No. 991438A

Memorandum Dated July 27, 2000

Donovan, J.

On October 15, 1986 the plaintiffs signed a purchase and sale agreement with the defendant for the construction and sale of a single-family house in the Canoe River Subdivision, Sharon Massachusetts. The agreement contained express warranties which the agreement stated survived the delivery of the deed.

The plaintiffs filed this action as a result of extensive settling of the foundation which plaintiffs allege was caused by the use of cobbles, boulders and organic material used as backfill and which did not compact evenly. As a result there is, among other issues, cracking in walls, ceilings and separation of the doors from the frames. Discovery of these problems *102and the cause was made in 1999. The plaintiffs allege in Count I breach of the express warranties set forth in the contract. They move for a real estate attachment against the defendant’s based on the express warranties and in its capacity as seller of the house.

The defendant opposes the request claiming protection under G.L.c. 260, §2B, the statute of repose. It also filed a motion for summary judgment founded on the same arguments.

DISCUSSION

The defendant claims the complaint sounds in tort and should be subject to the statute of repose. It is clear all tort claims and implied warranties cannot be maintained because the six years allowed by the statute of repose for the construction of the house expired at least by 1992. However, the court has stated that a claim for breach of an express warranty sounds in contract and is not subject to the statute of repose." *Anthony’s Pier*4, *Inc. v. Crandall Drydock Engrs., Inc.,*396 Mass. 818, 822 (1986). “The claim for breach of an express warranty, an action in contract, is not governed by the statute of repose. *Klein v. Catalano,*386 Mass. 701, 708, 437 N.E.2d 514 (1982). What differentiates the promise implied by law and an express warranty is that the ’’standard of performance is set by the defendants’ promises, rather than imposed by law." *Anthony's Pier Four, Inc. v. Crandall Dry Dock Engrs., Inc., Id.*at 822. More specifically, an express warranty promises that a specific result will be achieved — in contrast to a promise implied by law — namely, that the work of the professional conforms to the standards of his or her profession." *Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Cape Cod v. Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc.,*45 Mass.App.Ct. 120, 128 (1998).

In addition to the express warranties the defendant wore a second hat. That is as the seller of the property. As such the statute of repose does not apply. *Sullivan v. Iantosca,*409 Mass. 786, 799-800 (1991).

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons the plaintiffs’ motion for a real estate is *allowed*in the amount of $75,000.00 subject to the defendant filing within fifteen days of this order a bond in the stated amount. The motion for summary judgment is *allowed*as to all tort-based claims and is *denied*as to express warranties and claims under c. 93A founded on the express warranties.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8366 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8366

 To extend authorities to impose sanctions under certain laws relating 
    to Hong Kong, Tibet, and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2024

 Mr. Smith of New Jersey (for himself and Mr. McGovern) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
 and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend authorities to impose sanctions under certain laws relating 
    to Hong Kong, Tibet, and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS UNDER CERTAIN 
              LAWS RELATING TO HONG KONG, TIBET, AND THE XINJIANG 
              UYGHUR AUTONOMOUS REGION.

    (a) Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019.--Section 7(h) 
of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 (Public Law 
116-76; 22 U.S.C. 5701 note) is amended by striking ``5 years'' and 
inserting ``10 years''.
    (b) An Act To Prohibit the Commercial Export of Covered Munitions 
Items to the Hong Kong Police Force.--Section 3 of the Act entitled 
``An Act to prohibit the commercial export of covered munitions items 
to the Hong Kong Police Force'', approved November 27, 2019 (Public Law 
116-77; 133 Stat. 1173), is amended by striking ``shall expire'' and 
all that follows and inserting ``shall expire on December 31, 2029.''.
    (c) Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of 2018.--The Reciprocal Access 
to Tibet Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-330; 8 U.S.C. 1182 note) is 
amended--
            (1) in section 4(a), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 
        by striking ``the following five years'' and inserting ``the 
        following 10 years''; and
            (2) in section 5(c), in the first sentence, by striking 
        ``the following five years'' and inserting ``the following 10 
        years''.
    (d) Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020.--Section 6(h) of the 
Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020 (Public Law 116-145; 22 U.S.C. 
6901 note) is amended by striking ``5 years'' and inserting ``10 
years''.
                                 <all>
```
(V. D. 60)

Entry No. 84843.

#### S. E. Laszlo *v.*United States

(Decided December 11, 1957)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

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

Wilson, Judge:

This matter is presently before me on a remand from a classification proceeding decided by the first division of this court in *S. E. Laszlo*v. *United States,*36 Cust. Ct. 378, Abstract 59777. The judgment entered therein stated: “* * * that the matter be remanded to a single judge in reappraisement pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d) ”

The matter has been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

Upon the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for determining the values of the involved merchandise and that such values were:

> Item 7 x 50, Binoculars $12.75 each; cases $1.25 each

I further find such values to be the dutiable values of said merchandise.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
## De.vany, Dennis (OST) From: Sally Booth [slbooth21@me.com] 

### Sent:

. .Saturday, February 13, 2010 1:18 PM 

### To: Devany,Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST) 

### Cc: Bob Heins; CapeAir 

### Subject: Cape Air/90lgan Air serviceto Clinton County, NY
,,"**~'-"".'** " 

### Gentlemen,.**4~,_'** We havejust been alerted tothe editorial comment byAndy Schonbek in today's Press Republican. Wethink he summarizes the CapeAir/Colgan Air question extremelywell. Please take a minuteto read it

. Mr. Schonbek is a well known and successful business man in the Plattsburgh community. His analysis of the situation is carefullythought out and hitsthe nail squarelyon the head. While Cape Air planes are not as large as those offered by Colgan, theyare able to service Plattsburgh at lower cost and morefrequently and the competitor. Cape Air has proven itself reliable and has been accepted by our community. It's safety record.isimpeccable. It has consistently provided low costdependability which has been utilized bythousands of local residents successfully. Cape Air's ridership with a smaller plane has been in the mid 50% area. They have been able to operate satisfactorilywith these numbers and require a lower subsidyfrom the taxpayers. Colgan's promise of bigger planes is certainly tempting but comes with a price attached. The initial offering cites higher rates than Cape Airwhich they historically have increased later on. They offerfewer flights initially with no assurance that theywont be cut in the future. A customer surveydone byour local Chamber would only be reliable if the questions asked cover all alternatives. Apparentlythis one left much to be desired. Of course we would all like to have a bigger plane. Big isalways better, right? But in this case itmakes no sense when we don't even fill a smaller plane. Itwont lure lots more people to Plattsburgh just because of its size. Price, frequency and safety are hugefactors as well. Of course there is alsothe consideration of the taxpayer subsidy with Colgan. It would have to be substantially largerthan that for Cape Air. In the presentfinancial situation, dowe reallywant to add to the burden? A recent PBS documentary on Colgan Air and its attitudetowards pilot training and aircraft safety practices was shocking. It made one wonder how the company is still permitted to operate. And for us Plattsburghers, it made us wonder why we are even considering having this airline with its slipshod safetyrecord serve our community. We believe thatthe Clinton County Legislature has made a poor decision in supporting Colgan Air over CapeAir. We urgently requestthat you reverse the decision and allow CapeAir to continue to servethe people of Clinton County and the surrounding area. Christopher and Sara Booth, Concerned Residents Plattsburgh, New York

1
#### In the Matter of John Salvador, Jr., et al., Petitioners, v Victor R. Grant, as Chairman of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, Respondent.

[633 NYS2d 673]

—Per Curiam.

Proceeding initiated in this Court pursuant to Public Officers Law § 36 to remove respondent from the office of Chairperson of the Warren County Board of Supervisors.

Petitioners, residents of Warren County, commenced this proceeding to remove respondent from his position of Chairperson of the Warren County Board of Supervisors. The petition sets forth various allegations of maladministration and misuse of public funds, all of which respondent denies. Respondent moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that, *inter alia,*the proceeding does not lie under Public Officers Law § 36 because the position of Chairperson of the Warren County Board of Supervisors is a county, rather than a town or village, office.

Respondent’s position is meritorious. Chairperson of the Warren County Board of Supervisors is a county office. Public Officers Law § 36 authorizes commencement in this Court of a special proceeding to remove from office "[a]ny town, village, improvement district or fire district” official. Thus, by its terms, the statute does not apply to county officials *(cf., Matter of Hammarth,*78 AD2d 598, *appeal dismissed*51 NY2d 877). Consequently, respondent’s motion should be granted and the petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In addition, we conclude that an award of sanctions against petitioners, as requested by respondent, is not warranted in this instance.

Crew III, J. P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the motion to dismiss is granted and the petition is dismissed, without costs.
EXHIBIT 31.1

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Martin Berns, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, 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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: March 31, 2005                   By: /s/ Martin Berns
                                       Martin Berns, President, CEO, Director
                                       and Principle Executive Officer
No. 55319.

#### Q. W. Lung Co. *v.*United States,

protest 992958-G (Boston).

Opinion by Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of mah jong sets composed of synthetic phenolic resin similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 54651, the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
#### O’Donnell et al., Appellants, *v.*Thayer.

Argued January 15, 1969.

April 23, 1969:

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

*Vram Wedurian, Jr.,*with him *William L. McLaughlin,*for appellants.

*Joseph F. Harvey,*with him *MacElree, Platt & Harvey,*for appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Cohen and Mr. Justice Eagen dissent.
**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 withthe Quarterly Report of Cano Petroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Morris B. Smith,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)           The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company, as of, and for, the periods presented in theReport.

 

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

 

The foregoingcertification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuantto Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 202 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as partof the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardlessof any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

 

May 8, 2008

 

 
|   | /s/ Morris B. Smith     |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Morris B. Smith         |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
No. 47430.

#### Petition 6175-R of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial the appraiser testifying in behalf of the petitioning company stated that the rayon textile tax has been held not to be a part of the market value, and, further, that the petitioning company has always been regarded by him as a very reputable concern and the truth and honesty of its officers had never been questioned, although he has found them careless at times. A report of the customs agent was received in evidence on behalf of the Government. It appeared from this report that no inquiry was made of the appraiser before entry was made; that the merchandise was appraised in accoid anee with the price appearing on the list .of minimum .prices ¿fixed by the Federation of Japan Pottery Export Association in effect upon the date of exportation; and that the present import manager was of the opinion that the Federation' list was on file at the time of entry in the petitioner’s Los Angeles branch office. From the record the court was of the opinion that the importer had no intention of defrauding the revenue or deceiving the appraiser as to the value of his merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
# C_2007108EN.01003701.xml

| 12.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/37

---

Notice inviting applications for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block P2 of the Dutch continental shelf

(2007/C 108/13)

The Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block P2 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

(Mijnbouwregeling)

(Staatscourant)

With reference to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (1) and the publication required by Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit an application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block P2.

1

(Mijnbouwwet)

(Staatsblad)

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to the Minister for Economic Affairs, for the attention of the Director for the Energy Market, Bezuidenhoutseweg 30, The Hague, Netherlands, and marked ‘personal’. Applications submitted after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

Official Journal of the European Union

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than twelve months after this period has expired.

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31-70) 379 72 98.

---

(1)  OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3.

1

---
file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533 Standard Review Draft 4/4/2013 ENGINEER: El-Zoobi \ JD \ JAS \ AG \ JASfile:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM] INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 11-0533file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]file:///J|/INITENG/P11%20cases/p110533.sr.txt[5/1/2013 2:01:39 PM]