alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lucillius A. Emery *& al. versus*Inhabitants of Mariaville.

Town orders, made payable to the order of the payee, and accepted by the treasurer and indorsed by the payee, may be sued in the name of the indorsee.

Such orders are not regarded as commercial paper in the hands of *bona fide*holders for value; but they are subject to the same defence against an'indorsee as against the payee.

*316On Report.

Assumpsit on a town order of the following tenor: —

" |300. Mariaville, April 19, 1867.

"To Reuben Jellison, Treasurer of the town of Mariaville. Pay Lemuel M. Jordan or order, the sum of three hundred dollars, one year from date, it beiug town bounty raised for drafted men.” The order was signed by three persons, as "selectmen of Mariaville,” accepted by Reuben Jellison, and indorsed by L. M. Jordan.

It was proved that the plaintiffs owned the order. The case was reported to the full Court. If the action was maintainable in the names of the plaintiffs, it was to stand for trial.

*L. A. Emery,*for the plaintiffs.

*E. & F. Hale,*for the defendants,

cited *Smith*v. *Cheshire,*13 Gray, 318.

Dickerson, J.

— Assumpsit on an indorsed town order, payable to order, and given for soldiers’ bounty.

No question is raised with regard to the legality of the doings of the town in raising the money to pay the bounty, or of the authority of the selectmen to issue any other than a negotiable order; but it is objected that the selectmen had no authority to issue a negotiable order, capable of being sued in the name of the indorsee.

In support of this objection, it is urged that no such power is expressly given by statute, and that it would be dangerous to sanction such a practice, and would enable the selectmen to pay creditors of the town by notes exceeding the amount raised for municipal purposes; and that the town would be liable to *bona fide*indorsees without notice on such orders, without any power to inquire into the consideration, or to avail themselves of any payment, set-off, or other equity, it might have against the payee.

The answer to this objection is,

1. That the order in suit, upon its face advises the holder

*317of the nature of the consideration, and thereby makes him liable to the same defence as the payee, and

2. That town orders, when payable to order and indorsed, are not, in the purview of the law, regarded as commercial paper in the hands of *bona fide*indorsees for value, so as to exclude evidence touching the legality of their inception; and whoever receives them is subject to the same defence that would be good against the payee. *Willey*v. *Greenbush,*30 Maine, 452 ; *Sturtevant*v. *Liberty,*46 Maine, 459.

*Action to stand for trial.*

Appleton, C. J., Cutting, Kent, Barrows and Daneorth, JJ., concurred.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.b


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Morgan Beaumont, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth Craig, in
my capacity as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

                  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

                                                 /S/ THEODORE MISIEWICZ
Date: August __. 2005                            -----------------------
                                                 Theodore Misiewicz,
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

            Pursuant  to  section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code),  the  undersigned  officer of Interplay  Entertainment  Corp., a Delaware
corporation  (the  "Company"),  does hereby  certify  with respect to the Annual
Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended  December  31, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-K Report") that:

(1)      the 10-K 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 10-K Report fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


Date:    April 9,  2007

                                             /S/ HERVE CAEN
                                             -------------------------------
                                             Herve Caen
                                             Chief Executive Officer and
                                             Interim Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
      32.2




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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Huifeng Bio-Pharmaceutical Technology
      Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of, I, Sanding Tao, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




1.
      The
      Report 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.




Date:
      August 14, 2008




/S/
                Sanding TaoSanding
                Tao
              Chief
                Financial Officer
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeal of - )

)

G.W. Peoples Contracting Co., Inc. ) ASBCA No. 62063-ADR

)

Under Contract No. FQ14103 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Andrew N. Cook, Esq.

Christopher C. Vandervoort, Esq.

Amy Conant Hoang, Esq.

 K & L Gates LLP

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE AUTHORITY: Jon B. Crocker, Esq.

 Chief Counsel, Contracts

Washington Metropolitan Area 

 Transit Authority 

 Washington, DC

Attison L. Barnes, III, Esq.

Christopher M. Mills, Esq. 

 Wiley Rein LLP

 Washington, DC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. Each 

party shall bear its own fees and costs.

Dated: May 11, 2021

CHRISTOPHER M. MCNULTY

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals
2

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 62063-ADR, Appeal of G.W. 

Peoples Contracting Co., Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: May 12, 2021

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
#### Ralph Ruggeiro, an Infant, by Joseph Ruggeiro, His Guardian ad Litem, et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Board of Education of the City of Jamestown et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Chautauqua Coring,

March 16, 1966.

*Maidy <& Donnelly (Jay N. Rosenthal*of counsel), for plaintiffs. *Wright $ Wright*for Richard Schmidt, defendant. *William R. Blood*for Board of Education of the City of Jamestown, defendant.

Matthew J. Jasen, J.

Pursuant to CPLR 3101 (subd. [d]), plaintiffs move for an order to obtain a statement or report prepared by an employee of the defendant Board of Education upon the grounds that the said statement or report can no longer be duplicated and that the withholding of it will result in an injustice as well as undue hardship to the infant plaintiff.

Plaintiffs’ action is predicated upon negligence resulting in injuries sustained by the infant on October 23, 1962, during an altercation with defendant Richard Schmidt in the Jamestown High .School, Jamestown, New York, both parties being students therein at the time.

That in conjunction with the altercation, on or about October 30, 1962, Walter J. Colburn, a school employee, prepared a report of accident form (No. PO-48)- and submitted the same to the principal of the school in the regular course of business of the said Board of Education.

That sometime thereafter, on or about December 1, 1962, the treasurer of the board, upon learning that the injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff were -substantial, requested the said Mr. *533Colburn to prepare an additional report of the incident in narrative form to provide the board with further and more detailed information in the event litigation was commenced.

Plaintiffs’ counsel has now moved to obtain a copy of this narrative report.

CPLR 3101 (subd. [d]), provides that material created by or for a party or his agent in preparation for litigation shall not be obtainable unless the court finds that the material can no longer be duplicated because of a change in conditions and that withholding it will result in injustice or undue hardship.

The party seeking discovery of ‘1 material prepared for litigation ” must sustain the burden of proving circumstances sufficient to invoke the very specific exception set forth in CPLR 3101 (subd. [d]). *(Parker*v. *New York Tel. Co.,*24 A D 2d 1067; *Cohen*v. *Hardy,*23 A D 2d 793.)

To avoid the general exclusionary rule plaintiffs must satisfy the court that the material can no longer be duplicated because of a change in conditions and that withholding it will result in injustice or undue hardship. The test is twofold and plaintiffs have failed to meet either requirement. No change of conditions has ensued, all the defendants and their concerned employees are available to testify before and at the time of trial.

It is the opinion of this court that although CPLR 3101 commences with a mandate of full disclosure, the statute specifically excludes material prepared for litigation, except under special circumstances as stated therein.

Upon the facts and circumstances presented, this court cannot invoke such exception. ■
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 25061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10020]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on May 8, 2008 at 10 
a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3) (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the 
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Casey, as duty officer, voted to consider the items 
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for May 8, 2008 
will be:
    Formal orders of investigation;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an 
enforcement nature; and an opinion.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have 
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: the Office of the 
Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: May 1, 2008.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-10020 Filed 5-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
No. 43226.

#### Protest 907658-G of Greenberg & Josefsberg (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of paperweights chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes. On the authority of *Woolworth*v. *United States*(26 C. C. P. A. 211, C. A. D. 20) the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was sustained.
# C_2015107EN.01000301.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — T-Mobile Austria GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission

(Case C-282/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 5(6) - Rights of use for radio frequencies and numbers - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 4(1) - Right of appeal against a decision of a national regulatory authority - Meaning of ‘undertaking affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority’ - Article 9b - Transfer of individual rights to use radio frequencies - Reallocation of rights to use radio frequencies following the merger of two undertakings))

(2015/C 107/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: T-Mobile Austria GmbH

Respondent: Telekom-Control-Kommission

Intervening parties: Hutchison Drei Austria Holdings GmbH, formerly Hutchison 3G Austria Holdings GmbH, Hutchison Drei Austria GmbH, formerly Hutchison 3G Austria GmbH and Orange Austria Telecommunication GmbH, Stubai SCA, Orange Belgium SA, A1 Telekom Austria AG, Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4(1) and 9b of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Article 5(6) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, may be regarded as a person ‘affected’, for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, where that undertaking, which provides electronic communications networks or services, is a competitor of the undertaking or undertakings party to a procedure for the authorisation of a transfer of rights to use radio frequencies provided for in Article 5(6) and the addressees of the decision of the national regulatory authority, and where that decision is likely to have an impact on that first undertaking’s position on the market.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

---
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Ixia Pursuant to
Rule 13a-14(b) Under the Exchange Act and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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.
 Date: August 4, 2006
    /s/ Errol GinsbergErrol GinsbergPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 4, 2006
    /s/ Thomas B. MillerThomas B. MillerChief Financial Officer
#### Barbara McK. MUMMA and Lisa Mumma Morgan, as Co-Executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Robert MUMMA, II, and Hi-Spec, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Nos. 98-2419, 98-2452.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 9, 1999.

Rehearing Denied July 9, 1999.

James L.S. Bowdish of Crary, Buchanan, Bowdish, Bovie, Roby, Beres, Negron & Thomas, Chartered, and Jordan Fields of Fields & Wilkinson, P.A., Stuart, for appellants/cross-appellees.

Jeremy A. Koss of Phillips, Eisinger, Koss & Rosenfeldt, P.A., Hollywood, for appellees/cross-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, both the appellants and the appellees allege error in the trial court’s 1998 order which “closed” an action without further judicial proceedings, following a 1993 partial final judgment dissolving a corporation and ordering a final accounting. We reverse.

The trial court lacked authority to “close” this case. While trial courts at one time possessed the inherent power to dismiss a cause that was not being prosecuted with reasonable diligence, that power was eliminated with enactment of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure. 1.420(e). *Kodner v. Florida Power and Light Co.,*693 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Assuming, without deciding, that rule 1.420(e) applies after a partial final judgment is entered in a case,1 no rule 1.420(e) motion was pending when the trial court “closed” this case.

The order on appeal is reversed. The 1993 partial final judgment remains in force, and need not be revisited on re*572mand. The only issues left to be decided concern the final accounting and winding up of the corporation, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Any concern the court may have regarding the parties’ lack of diligence in moving this case to conclusion can be addressed by setting a *final*hearing date, and holding to it.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

DELL, POLEN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

1

. *Compare, Ravel v. Ravel,*326 So.2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (holding rule 1.420(e) does not apply once a final judgment is entered) with *Frohman v. Bar-Or,*660 So.2d 633 (Fla.1995) (holding rule 1.420(e) applies to post-trial proceedings in mortgage foreclosure actions such as a motion for deficiency judgment)
EX-10.3






ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT




THIS ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT (the “Assignment”) is made November 1, 2007 by TRIPLE NET
PROPERTIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company (“Assignor”) to APARTMENT REIT VILLAS OF EL
DORADO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”).



RECITALS




Assignor and El Dorado Apartments LLC, a Texas limited liability company, entered into that
certain Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated February 21, 2007, as amended (as amended, the
“Contract”) with respect to certain property known as the Villas at El Dorado Apartments, located
in Collin County, Texas, as more particularly described in the Contract. Assignor desires to
assign all of its rights, title and interest in and to the Contract to Assignee.



AGREEMENT




FOR and in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Assignor hereby assigns all of its
rights, title and interest in and to the Contract to Assignee.



Assignee by its execution of this Assignment hereby assumes all of Assignor’s obligations
under the Contract.




WITNESS the following signatures:



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	ASSIGNOR:	 	TRIPLE NET-PROPERTIES, LLC,
	 	 	a Virginia limited liability company	 	 
	 	 	By: /s/ Jeff Hanson	 	 
	 	 	Name: Jeff Hanson	 	 
	 	 	Title: Chief Investment Officer	 	 
	ASSIGNEE:	 	APARTMENT REIT VILLAS OF EL DORADO, LLC,
	 	 	a Delaware limited liability company	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	NNN Apartment REIT Holdings, L.P.,
	 	 	 	 	a Virginia limited partnership
	
 
	 	 	 	Its: Sole Member
	 	

	
 
	 	 	 	By:
	 	NNN Apartment REIT Inc.,







	 	 	a Maryland corporation






Its: Manager




By: /s/ S. Jay Olander

Name: S. Jay Olander

Its: Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10.48



September 2, 2003



Pacific Financial Printing (Sublessor)

4020 Campbell Avenue

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Attention: Ms. Theresa Garcia-DeVeaux



Mr. Albert Gounod (Lessor)

373 Alicia Way

Los Altos, CA 94022



Exercise one-year lease extension from
10/01/03-09/30/04 at 4020 Campbell Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025. Approximately 10,000 Sq ft. (the Premises)



The undersigned, Memry Corporation (Sublessee) is subtenant of the Premises under that certain Standard Sublease dated February 3, 2000 (the
Sublease). Your rights as tenant of the Premises (and other premises at the same address) are governed by that certain Standard Industrial/Commercial Single-Tenant Lease dated February 14, 2000 and as extended to April 15, 2006 by Second
Addendum to Lease dated December 31, 2000 (as so extended and renewed, the Lease).



Memry Corporation (Sublessee) is exercising the second of four 1-year extensions as contained in paragraph (c) of Sublease Extension dated April 12, 2001. Sublessee will make monthly payments of $11,220,
for a total of $134,640 (12 months Xs $11,220 per month).



The terms and conditions of this extension will be applied if the 2 remaining extensions are exercised.



|Agreed and Acknowledged:    |  |                 |  | Agreed and Acknowledged:    
|--------------------------- |  | --------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                            |  |                
|Memry Corporation           |  |                 |  | Pacific Financial Printing  
|                            |  |                 |  |                             
|By:                         |  | /s/ Bob Belcher |  |                             
|Bob Belcher                 |  |                 |  | Ms. Theresa Garcia-DeVeaux  
|CFO & Senior Vice-President |  |                 |  | Vice-President of Operations
|Date:                       |  | 9/2/2003        |  |                             



|Memry Corporation                                        
|---------------------------------------------------------
|Headquarters and Eastern Operations 3 Berkshire Boulevard
|Bethel, CT 06801                                         
|Executive Offices 203-739-1100 Fax 203-798-6511          



Customer Service 866-Go
Memry / Fax 203-798-6606
#### Leo N. Leslie v. Charles E. Gibson.

No. 15,976.

Error from Seward district court; William H. Thompson, judge.

Opinion filed July 3, 1909.

Affirmed.

*V. H. Grinstead,*for the plaintiff in error.

*Thomas A. Scates,*and *Albert Watkins,*for the defendant in error.

*Per Curiam:*

The facts in this case are substantially the same as in *Leslie v. Gibson, ante*p. 504. For the reasons given in the opinion in that case the judgment is affirmed.