alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mary U. Fiorella, Plaintiff, *v.*Buffalo Park Lane Restaurant, Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Erie County,

March 14, 1966.

*Peter J. Fiorella, Jr.,*for plaintiff. *Bernard Helfenstein*for defendant.

Matthew J. Jasen, J.

Plaintiff moves to amend the summons and complaint, pursuant to "CPLR 3025, by changing the name of the defendant from Park Lane Restaurant, Inc., to Buffalo Park Lane Restaurant, Inc.

It is claimed by plaintiff that this is only an informal defect and cannot prejudice the defendant, that to refuse to permit the amendment would in fact prejudice the plaintiff as the Statute of Limitations has expired.

Defendant contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to permit the amendment of a corporate title where in fact a different or improper corporate title is set forth. This it .is argued would be a substitution of a nonentity for an existing one or to substitute one corporate entity for another.

An examination of the complaint reveals that plaintiff alleges being injured on property located at Delaware Avenue and Gates Circle, Buffalo, New York. Erroneously the owner of this property is titled as Park Lane Restaurant, Inc., Delaware Avenue and Gates Circle, Buffalo, New York, whereas the correct title of the owner should have been, *Buffalo*Park Lane Restaurant, Inc., 33 Gates Circle, Buffalo, New York.

The affidavit of service indicates that the summons and complaint were served on Peter Gust, the manager of the restaurant *519operated by Buffalo Park Lane Restaurant, Inc., at the premises located on Gates Circle and Delaware Avenue, in Buffalo, New York.

There is no showing that Park Lane Restaurant, Inc. is actually a different and separate corporate entity. Furthermore, it is not controverted by the corporation, Buffalo Park Lane Restaurant, Inc., that it owned, operated, maintained and controlled a restaurant at 33 Gates Circle, which is located at G-ates Circle and Delaware Avenue in Buffalo, New York.

The court may correct an omission at any stage of the action, if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced (CPLR 2001).

Upon the circumstances presented, there can be no doubt that the plaintiff had intended to sue the owner and operator of the restaurant located at Gates Circle and Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York, commonly known and advertised as the Park Lane Restaurant and that service on the manager (Peter Gust) of the actual owner and operator of the restaurant (Buffalo Park Lane Restaurant, Inc.) was in effect effected.

This court is of the opinion that where service was effected, under a misnomer, upon the party which plaintiff intended to sue, the court has jurisdiction over the party provided the party was fairly apprised that it was the party the action was intended to affect. (See *Stuyvesant*v. *Weil,*167 N. Y. 421, 426 and *Ryan*v. *Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,*20 A D 2d 274.)

The omission of the word Buffalo in the description of the defendant was an insubstantial error which plaintiff should be permitted to cure by amendment.
# C_2013101EN.01000503.xml

| 6.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 101/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Krefeld (Germany) lodged on 30 November 2012 — Marc Brogsitter v Fabrication de Montres Normandes Eurl, Karsten Fräßdorf

(Case C-548/12)

2013/C 101/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Krefeld

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and defendant to the counterclaim: Marc Brogsitter

Applicant and defendant to the counterclaim:

Defendants and counterclaimants: Fabrication de Montres Normandes Eurl, Karsten Fräßdorf

Defendants and counterclaimants:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 5(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a claimant who alleges that he has suffered damage by an anticompetitive act of his contractual partner domiciled in another Contracting State, which is to be regarded in German law as a tortious act, is raising claims against that person based on contract, even in so far as he bases his action on claims relating to tort?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2014052EN.01003602.xml

| 22.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — LaserSoft Imaging v OHIM (WorkflowPilot)

(Case T-475/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark WorkflowPilot - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)

2014/C 52/68

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LaserSoft Imaging AG (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: J. Hunnekuhl, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2012 (Case R 480/2012-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark WorkflowPilot as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders LaserSoft Imaging AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders LaserSoft Imaging AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.

1

---
#### In the matter of the probate of the last will of Samuel Richter.

[Decided September 6th, 1917.]

In a case not free from doubt but where three witnesses of respectability testify to the legal execution .of a will, neither the draftsman or the • other two witnesses taking anything under it, and where the will is one the testator would naturally have made, the will should be sustained.

On appeal from the Essex county orphans court.

*Mr. William Greenfield*and *Mr. Benjamin M. Weinberg,*for the appellant.

*Mr. William H.*Osborne, for the respondent.

*163Stevens, Yice-Ordinary.

This case is not free from doubt, but the evidence does hot convince me that the will was forged. I cannot usefully add anything to the opinion of the judge of the orphans court, with which I concur. Three witnesses of respectability testify to the execution. Neither to the draftsman, nor to the other two witnesses, does the will give anything. It was just such a will as .the testator would naturally have made. There is not the slightest independent evidence of a conspiracy to commit forgery and perjury entered 'into between these witnesses and the widow. Under these circumstances I think the decree of the orphans court should be affirmed.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 241]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 2892]]

Public Law 115-241
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the program of 
payments to children's hospitals that operate graduate medical education 
   programs, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Sept. 18, 2018 -  [H.R. 
                                5385]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Dr. Benjy 
Frances Brooks Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 
2018.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 42 USC 201 note.>>  SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Dr. Benjy Frances Brooks Children's 
Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2018''.
SEC. 2. PROGRAM OF PAYMENTS TO CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS THAT OPERATE 
                    GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

    Section 340E of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256e) is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and each of fiscal 
        years 2014 through 2018,'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 
        2014 through 2018, and each of fiscal years 2019 through 
        2023,'';
            (2) in subsection (b)(3)(D), by inserting ``and the end of 
        fiscal year 2022,'' after ``fiscal year 2018,''; and
            (3) in subsection (f)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1)(A)--
                          (i) in clause (iv), by striking ``; and'' and 
                      inserting a semicolon;
                          (ii) in clause (v), by striking the period at 
                      the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                          (iii) by adding at the end the following:
                          ``(vi) for each of fiscal years 2019 through 
                      2023, $105,000,000.''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (2)--
                          (i) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``; and'' 
                      and inserting a semicolon;
                          (ii) in subparagraph (E), by striking the 
                      period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
                          (iii) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(F) for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023, 
                $220,000,000.''.

    Approved September 18, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5385 (S. 2597):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            July 23, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 4, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

MICHAEL J. PENDLETON,

Petitioner

v.

MELISSA HAINSWORTH,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 73 WM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of September, 2018

, the Application for Leave to File

Original Process is GRANTED. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Application

for an Immediate Hearing, and the Application for Leave to File Supplement are DENIED.
No. 96-5962.

#### Juvenile (JJAC) *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1

Robert M. Gates and Mary E. Peters have been appointed to serve as the

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation, respectively, and are

substituted as appellees pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1510

___________

Randal Wayne Enyeart; *

Rodney A. Mattmiller, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

State of Minnesota; Michael A. Hatch; *

Dan Salomone; Robert M. Gates; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Alberto R. Gonzales; Mary E. Peters,1 *

*

Appellees. *

*

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2007

Filed: March 13, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
2

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

Randall Enyeart and Rodney Mattmiller appeal from the district court’s2

 final

order and judgment dismissing with prejudice, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), their action for declaratory relief against the State of

Minnesota, two Minnesota officials, and three federal officials under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Upon de novo review, see M.P. ex rel. K. & D.P. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No.

721, 439 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir. 2006) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction reviewed de

novo); Stringer v. St. James R-1 Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir. 2006)

(dismissal for failure to state claim reviewed de novo), we agree with the district

court’s well-reasoned order. We also conclude that the court did not err in dismissing

plaintiffs’ motion to realign the parties. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

______________________________
SERVED: JANUARY 28, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION FAADOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA-2013-0852
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING**~")** .,..} •..r.'.·.,, 0,:**?.~**

## 2 L ";
. -

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. EIR2010-GL-11-0030) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAAHearing Docket, and the otherpersons onthe attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service List

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY



### Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 ONE COPY 

### Reza Soltanian, Respondent's President 

### Regent Aerospace Corporation and Airbase Services, Inc. 28110 West Harrison Parkway, Valencia, CA 91355-4109 TEL: 661-257-3000 FAX: 661-702-0241 JohnS. Hoff& 

### Jeffrey Clement, Respondent's Counsel 

### Hoff& 

### Herran 135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603-4134 TEL: 312-346-8111 FAX: 312-853-3924 ' 

### Chris G. Zurales, Complainant's Counsel 

### FDMS No. FAA-2013-0852 (Civil Penalty Action)

Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel, Great Lakes Region, AGL-7K Federal Aviation Administration 2300 East DevonAvenue Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7713 FAX: 847-294-7498 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative Law Judge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of IWT Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Forrest P. Jordan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Dated: November 19, 2004 | /s/Forrest P. Jordan    |   |
|-------------------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                          | Forrest P. Jordan       |
|                          | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
SIBLING ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.(A Development Stage
Company) Exhibit 32.2 Certification
by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection
with the Annual Report of Sibling Entertainment Group, Inc. (the Company) on
the Form 10-KSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James
S. Cardwell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that: (i)the Report
filed by the Company 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 that Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates
and for the periods presented therein. SIBLING ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.Date: October
  23, 2006
  By:
  /s/ James S. CardwellJames S.
  CardwellChief
  Financial Officer & Principal Accounting Officer This certification accompanies
this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 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. 34
Exhibit 13.1

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 Annual Report of Mexicana de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31,
2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Xavier García de Quevedo Topete, President and General Director 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:



|Date: July 14, 2004 |  |  |                                                                                                              
|------------------- |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | /s/XAVIER GARCÍA DE QUEVEDO TOPETEName: Xavier García de Quevedo Topete
Title: President and General Director

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Mexicana de Cobre, S.A. de C.V. and will be retained by Mexicana de Cobre, S.A. de C.V.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.

---
# C_2013377EN.01002301.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/23

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case F-19/12) (1)

1

(Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifest inadmissibility - None)

2013/C 377/52

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s note containing one or more decisions concerning the applicant’s administrative status and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Marcuccio will bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Marcuccio will bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 34.

1

---
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Ho-Shang Lee, President and Chief Executive 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:



| | (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.

/s/ Ho-Shang Lee
Ho-Shang Lee
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 23

- 11604 Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus LORENZO GAROD PIERRE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:22

- cr
- 20321

- JEM

- 1

____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-11604 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 1 of 22 Opinion of the Court 23

- 11604

Before N EWSOM , A BUDU , and A NDERSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Pierre appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) , arguing that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to his case, in light of N ew York State Rifle & Pistol As sociation v. Bruen , 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) , because it violates the Second Amendment and is inconsistent with this nation’s tradition of firearms regulations.
In United States v. DuBois , No. 22

- 10829, manuscript op. at 9

- 15 ( 11th Cir. 2024), we explicitly rejected this argument and ruled that our prior precedent in United States v. Rozier , 598 F.3d 768 (11th Cir. 2010) , in which we upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) , remains good law

. See Smith v. GTE Corp. , 236 F.3d 1292, 1300 n.8 (11th Cir. 200 1 ) (“ Under the well

- established prior panel precedent rule of this Circuit, the holding of the first panel to address an issueis the law of this Circuit, thereby binding all subsequent panels unless and until the first panel ’ s holding is ov erruled by the Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court. ” (citing Cargill v. Turpin , 120 F.3d 1366, 1386 (11th Cir. 1997) ))

. As such, Pierre’s argument fails , and h is conviction is AFFIRMED. USCA11 Case: 23-11604 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 03/12/2024 Page: 2 of 2
EX-4.17



 





Exhibit
4.17


	 	 	 	 	 



CERTIFICATE OF TRUST




OF




NATIONAL CITY PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III





     THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of NATIONAL CITY PREFERRED CAPITAL TRUST III (the “Trust”), dated as
of January 8, 2008 is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustee, to form a
statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. (Section) 3801 et seq.).



     1. NAME. The name of the statutory trust being formed hereby is National City Preferred
Capital Trust III.



     2. DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with a
principal place of business in the State of Delaware are as follows:



The Bank of New York (Delaware)

White Clay Center, Route 273

New Castle County

Newark, Delaware 19711

Attention: Corporate Trust




     3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustee of the Trust, has executed this
Certificate of Trust as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE)

Not in its individual capacity, but solely as Delaware

Trustee

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Kristine K. Gullo
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Kristine K. Gullo 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Vice President