alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 46902.

#### Protests 993386-G, etc., of Dritz Traum Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2016191EN.01004902.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 11 April 2016 — Wolff v EEAS

(Case F-94/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - EEAS staff - Staff Committee - Election of the Staff Committee members - Validity - Fifth paragraph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations - EEAS electoral regulations - First ballot - Quorum not attained - Extension of the polling period - Supplementary extension of the polling period - Failure to organise a second ballot - Unlawfulness))

(2016/C 191/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Oren Wolff (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T.Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: initially M. Silva and S. Marquardt, Agents, then G.-J. van Hegelsom, S. Marquardt and E. Chaboureau, Agents, and lastly G.-J. van Hegelsom, S. Marquardt and E. Chaboureau, Agents, M. Troncoso Ferrer, F.-M. Hislaire and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s challenge brought against the result of the elections to the EEAS Staff Committee.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 23 April 2015 by which the European External Action Service rejected Oren Wolff’s request seeking that the result of the elections of the members of the Staff Committee be deemed invalid; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 23 April 2015 by which the European External Action Service rejected Oren Wolff’s request seeking that the result of the elections of the members of the Staff Committee be deemed invalid;

| 2. | Declares that the European External Action Service shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Wolff. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that the European External Action Service shall bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Wolff.

---

(1)  OJ C 294, 07/09/2015, p. 83.

1

---
Exhibit 32



Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,



As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act
of 2002





I, Gordon R. Arnold, certify, to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



i. The Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of Sierra Monitor Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and;



ii. The information
contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, 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 Sierra
Monitor Corporation and will be retained by Sierra Monitor Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.



|Date: August 10, 2012 | By: | /s/ Gordon R. Arnold
|--------------------- | --- | --------------------
|                      |     |                     
|                      |     |                     
|                      |     |
#### Smith *versus*Rines.

In a suit to recover for money paid by the plaintiff, as surety to the defendant in a replevin bond, it is no defence, that the’plaintiff, when signing the bond, knew that the replevin suit was groundless and malicious.

Assumpsit for money paid by plaintiff as surety on a replevin bond.

Pillsbury attached goods on a writ against Stover Rines, who procured them to be receipted for. After demand, the receiptors were sued, and *their*goods were attached. The defendant replevied the last mentioned goods, furnishing the plaintiff and two other persons, as sureties on the replevin bond. After judgment, by consent, for a return, judgment on the bond was recovered against the defendant and his sureties, and it was satisfied by a levy upon the *plaintiff’s*real estate. To recover the amount thus satisfied on said judgment, the plaintiff brings this suit.

A,t the trial, the defendant proved that he never had even a color of title to the goods replevied, and that the plaintiff, his surety, well knew that fact; that there was a concert between' them to use the replevin suit for the purpose of procuring more time for Stover Riñes, in which to settle his debt to Pillsbury.

It was ruled that that proof furnished no defence to this suit.

The defendant excepted.

*Ingersoll,*for defendant.

The replevin suit was a groundless and malicious prosecution. The parties are in *pari delictii,*equally *tort feasors.*In such cases, the law furnishes no relief between the parties.

1. This defendant is liable to an action for malicious prosecution. *Stone*v. *Swift, A*Pick. 392 ; *Farnham*v. *Moor,*21 Maine, 508; *Noyes*v. *Wells,*12 Pick. 324; *Ives*v. *Bartholomew,*9 Conn. 309 ; *Revenga*v. *McIntosh,*2 B. <fc C. 693.

*1782. The replevin bond was an essential part of that process. All the signers of it were principals in the wrong, and equally guilty of a fraud. 8 Smedes & Marshall, 305.

3. Among joint *tort feasors*there is no implied indemnity. 2 Green!. Ev. sect. 115. This case is within the *rule,*not the *exception.*It was not an innocent act. It was to try no right. *Merriweailer*v. *Nixan,*8 T. R. 186 ; *Fair-brother*v. *Ansley,*1 Camp. 343 *; Wilson*v. *Milnor,*2 Camp. 450, 452.

*Cutting,*for plaintiff.

Howard, J.,

orally.—If the giving of the bond was a fraud, it was one of singular character, for it indemnified the intended victim. This suit is not brought upon any illegal contract. There is no ground,. in law or equity, why the plaintiff should not recover. *Exceptions overruled.*
<PAGE>
                                                                     Exhibit 4.8
                           [Letterhead of COMDISCO]

FEDERAL EXPRESS


June 7, 1999

Mr. Mark Vranesh
Director of Finance
1816 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303

Re: (3) Warrant Agreements Dated as of October 27, 1998 between Comdisco, Inc.
("Warrantholder") and Tioga Systems, Inc., ("Company") collectively the
("Warrants")

Dear Mark:

This letter is to confirm that the above referenced parties agree that the
Series C Preferred Stock financing shall be considered the Next Round, as
referenced in the Warrants and the resulting number of shares issuable to
Warrantholder shall be as follows:

Equipment Lease Warrant Shares issuable         7,578
Secured Debt Warrant Shares issuable            22,733
Subordinated Debt Warrant Shares issuable       68,200
                                                ------
Grand Total                                     98,511


Please indicate your acceptance of the above agreement by signing in the space
provided below and returning these letters to me. We send you a fully executed
copy in the next few days. If you have any questions or comments please do not
hesitate to call me at (650) 234-1627.

Sincerely,

/s/ Vika Tonga
-----------------
Vika Tonga
Information Document Specialist

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

TIOGA SYSTEMS, INC.                     COMDISCO, INC.

By: Mark Vranesh                        By: James Labe
    ------------------                      ---------------

Signature: /s/ Mark Vranesh             Signature: /s/ James Labe
          -------------------                      ----------------

Title: Dir. Fin./Gen. Sec.              Title: President Comdisco
       ----------------------                  Ventures Division
                                               ---------------------------
                                               June 14, 1999
# C_2017022EN.01003401.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/34

---

Order of the General Court of 25 November 2016 — Stichting Accolade v Commission

(Case T-598/15) (1)

1

((State aid - Sale of land at prices allegedly below market price - Complaint made by a third party to the Commission - Decision declaring that the contested measure does not constitute aid - Procedure governing the preliminary examination stage under Article 108(2) TFEU and under Article 10(1), Article 13(1) and Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 concerning allegedly unlawful individual aid - Action for annulment brought by a third party - Admissibility - Locus standi - Action designed to safeguard procedural rights - Action challenging the merits of the contested measure - No substantial effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility))

(2017/C 022/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Accolade (Drachten, the Netherlands) (represented by: H. de Boer and J. Abma, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, acting as agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 4411 final of 30 June 2015 on State aid SA.34676 (2015/NN) — The Netherlands (alleged sale of land below market price by the municipality of Harlingen), by which the Commission decided that the sale of that land to Ludinga Vastgoed BV did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

| 2. | Stichting Accolade shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Stichting Accolade shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 123 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 55
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 123

                          [Report No. 110-134]

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 2007

Ms. Norton (for herself, Mr. Graves, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Moran of Virginia, 
Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Tom Davis of 
  Virginia) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
     referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                              May 8, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR D.C. SPECIAL 
              OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN.

    On June 8, 2007, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly designate, the 2007 District of Columbia Special 
Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution referred to as 
the ``event'') may be run through the Capitol Grounds as part of the 
journey of the Special Olympics torch to the District of Columbia 
Special Olympics summer games.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.
                                                  House Calendar No. 55

110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 123

                          [Report No. 110-134]

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 8, 2007

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

CRYSTAL RONEY,

Appellant,

v.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB,

d/b/a CHRISTIANA TRUST, NOT INDIVIDUALLY 

BUT AS TRUSTEE FOR PRETIUM MORTGAGE

ACQUISITION TRUST,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-2313

[July 20, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Michael A. Robinson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

CACE20018154.

Bruce Jacobs of Jacobs Legal, PLLC, Miami, for appellant.

Nicholas S. Agnello of Burr & Forman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and 

Jacqueline Simms-Petredis of Burr & Forman LLP, Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

GROSS, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
----

----

----

|                      12. | Successors and      Assigns.  This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall      inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs,      representatives, administrators, successors and assigns; provided,      however, that (i) Assignor may assign this Agreement and its rights and      obligations hereunder to any entity acquiring the Note and Loan Documents      with the prior written consent of Assignee, and (ii) Assignee may not      assign or transfer all or any portion of this Agreement and its rights and      obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of      Assignor. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

----

|   | By: | /s/ David      Hanson |
|--------|-----|-----------------------|

|   | Name: | David      Hanson |
|--------|-------|-------------------|

|   | Title: | UMTH      GS L.P.- Advisor |
|--------|--------|----------------------------|

|   | By: | /s/ Ben      Wissink |
|--------|-----|----------------------|

|   | Name: | Ben      Wissink |
|--------|-------|------------------|

|   | Title: | Chief      Operating Officer |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|

----
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 225 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 17, 2007 

Received 

OCTOBER 18, 2007 

Referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Honoring the 50th anniversary of the dawn of the Space 

Age, and the ensuing 50 years of productive and peaceful 

space activities. 

Whereas the dawn of the Space Age took place on October 

4, 1957 with the launch of Sputnik 1, an event that was 

followed soon after by the American launch of Explorer 

1; 

Whereas the exploration of space evolved from cold war competition into an endeavor that has been marked 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

HCON 225 RFS 

by significant international cooperation, with results that 

have benefitted all humanity; 

Whereas a new chapter in space exploration was opened when 

cosmonauts and astronauts first orbited the Earth in the 

early 1960s, culminating in the historic first steps taken 

by astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. 

on the Moon in 1969; 

Whereas robotic explorers have ranged throughout the solar 

system, with Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft now on the 

verge of entering interstellar space; 

Whereas from space, we have been able to increase significantly our understanding of the universe and its origin; 

Whereas observations from space have enabled large scale 

monitoring of the Earth’s weather and climate; 

Whereas satellites have become a part of our daily lives, 

transforming communications, navigation, and positioning; 

Whereas the competition that accompanied the dawn of the 

Space Age reinvigorated the Nation’s interest in science 

and technology, leading to an increased investment both 

in research and in science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics education; 

Whereas these investments contributed to the development of 

a technologically skilled generation of Americans that has 

led the world in innovation and accomplishment; 

Whereas the new global competition for preeminence in 

science and technology and innovation has led to a call 

for a renewed commitment to research and to science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics education akin 

to that which followed the dawn of the Space Age; and 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
3 

HCON 225 RFS 

Whereas Congress has responded by renewing our national 

commitment to science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics education with the recently enacted America 

COMPETES Act: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the Congress— 

3 (1) honors the 50th anniversary of the dawn of 

4 the Space Age; 

5 (2) recognizes the value of investing in Amer6 ica’s space program; and 

7 (3) declares it to be in America’s interest to 

8 continue to advance knowledge and improve life on 

9 Earth through a sustained national commitment to 

10 space exploration in all its forms, led by a new gen11 eration of well educated scientists, engineers, and ex12 plorers. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 16, 

2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------

                              UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.
                    CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     I, Kenneth H. Globus,  President of United-Guardian,  Inc., hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of  United-Guardian,  Inc.
on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal  quarter ended June 30, 2007 fully  complies with
the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of
1934, and that information  contained in this Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all
material  respects  the  financial   condition  and  results  of  operations  of
United-Guardian, Inc.


Date:  August 9, 2007                        By: /s/ Kenneth H. Globus
                                             ---------------------
                                             Kenneth H. Globus
<TABLE>
UJB FINANCIAL CORP.                                                                 Exhibit (11)
COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
(dollars in thousands, except per share data)


<CAPTION>
                                        Six Months Ended      Three Months Ended
                                            June 30,              June 30,
                                      -------------------   ---------------------
                                        1995      1994        1995        1994
                                      --------- ---------   ---------   ---------
<S>                                   <C>       <C>         <C>         <C>
Average number of common
  shares outstanding
  (in thousands) (A)                    55,946    54,604      57,302      54,797
                                      ========= =========   =========   =========

Net income                            $124,362   $95,827     $44,039     $38,571

  less:  Preferred dividends             1,382     1,358         450         458
                                      --------- ---------   ---------   ---------
Net income available to
  common shareholders (B)             $122,980   $94,469     $43,589     $38,113
                                      ========= =========   =========   =========

Net income per common share (B)/(A)      $2.20     $1.73       $0.76       $0.70
                                      ========= =========   =========   =========

<FN>
Note:  The dilutive effect of common stock equivalents in 1995 and 1994 was not
           material for all periods shown.
</FN>
</TABLE>