alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gottesman Company, Appellant, v Metro Creative Graphics, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[737 NYS2d 77]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered May 21, 2001, which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The action seeks to recover a commission under an “exclusive right to sell” contract, in which plaintiff was retained by *392defendant’s company and its principals for a period of one year “to obtain a sale or merger of the company,” and was to be entitled to a commission “upon the sale or merger of the company in whole or in part arranged by [plaintiff], [defendant’s] principal, the company, or any other person or entity.” Plaintiff’s claim herein that it is entitled to a commission by reason of defendant company’s sale of its minority interest in another company was opposed by defendants on the ground that the sold stock was merely one of the company’s assets, in the same sense as an item of office furniture, and not a portion of itself or of its business, and that the company’s corporate structure has at all relevant times remained unchanged. As plaintiff does not come forward with any evidence to the contrary, and as the agreement in issue was drafted by plaintiff and does not define what constitutes a partial sale or merger of the company, the action was properly dismissed (see, *Jacobson v Sassower,*66 NY2d 991, 993). Concur — Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Wallach and Buckley, JJ.
To Whom It May Concern:

Chad Copeland, based in Seattle, WA and working internationally, is a professional 

photographer whose work is represented by the National Geographic Creative. Mr. 

Copeland, in cooperation with National Geographic Creative is responsible for ongoing 

photo assignments, which will be used in periodicals, books and other media by both the 

Society and clients of National Geographic Creative. Any assistance that you can offer 

Mr. Copeland in pursuit of these assignments will be gratefully appreciated.

National Geographic Creative represents the work of the majority of the photographers 

commissioned by the Society and its magazine National Geographic. In the course of 

representing photographers, the photography agency arranges assignments for these 

photographers.

The National Geographic Society is a scientific and educational non-governmental 

institution with millions of members, which is known worldwide for its magazine 

National Geographic and it other publications, its scientific research and exploration 

activities.
#### Lester C. WALKER, Appellant, v. Glenn E. METCALF, d/b/a Gem Sand Co., and Howard K. Williams, Appellees.

No. 70-461.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 18, 1970.

*496Barry M. Salzman, of Roney, Ulmer, Woodworth & Jacobs, P. A., St. Peters-burg, for appellant.

John G. Fatolitis, Tarpon Springs^ for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Cloud v. Fallís, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 669.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and PIERCE, JJ., concur.
#### Murray SIMON, Relator, v. The Honorable Marvin U. MOUNTS, Jr., as Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Criminal Division, Respondent.

No. 73-1387.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

Prohibition denied.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 67

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that a veteran who

is a former prisoner of war and who was detained or interned for

not less than 90 days shall be deemed to have a service-connected

disability rated at not less than 50 percent for the purposes of determining benefits due to such veteran.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. BILIRAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that

a veteran who is a former prisoner of war and who

was detained or interned for not less than 90 days shall

be deemed to have a service-connected disability rated

at not less than 50 percent for the purposes of determining benefits due to such veteran.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 67 IH

1 SECTION 1. DISABILITY RATING FOR CERTAIN FORMER

2 PRISONERS OF WAR.

3 (a) RATING OF DISABILITY.—Chapter 11 of title 38,

4 United States Code, is amended by inserting after section

5 1116 the following new section:

6 ‘‘§ 1117. Disability rating for certain former prisoners

7 of war

8 ‘‘A veteran who is a former prisoner of war and who

9 was detained or interned for not less than 90 days as a

10 prisoner of war shall be deemed to have a service-con11 nected disability rated at not less than 50 percent for the

12 purpose of determining the benefits due such veteran

13 under laws administered by the Secretary.’’.

14 (b) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections at

15 the beginning of chapter 11 of title 38, United States

16 Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to

17 section 1116 the following new item:

‘‘1117. Disability rating for certain former prisoners of war.’’.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
CARLOS ORTIZ,
Defendant Below, Appellant,

v. STATE OF DELAWARE,
Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § No. 458, 2019 § § § § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 0208005710 (S) § §
Submitted: December 23, 2019 Decided: February 21, 2020

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VAUGHN , and TRAYNOR , Justices.
ORDER After careful consideration of the appella nt’s opening brief, the State’s motion
to affirm, and the record on appeal, we conclude that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily dism issed the appellant’s eleventh motion for postconviction relief. The appellant has no t pleaded with particularity the existence

of new evidence of actual innocence or that a new, retroactive rule of constitutional

law renders his conviction invalid. 1 Moreover, the appellant’s claim that the

1 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(d)(2).2 Superior Court lacked jurisdiction 2 because of deficiencies in the indictment fails on

the merits. 3 We previously warned the appellant that if he continued to file appeals from the denial of untimely and repetitive moti ons for postconviction relief, he risked being enjoined from filing such appeals in this Court without first seeking leave of

the Court. 4 We now conclude that Ortiz’s untim ely, repetitive, and frivolous filings constitute an abuse of the judicial process. Thus, the Clerk of this Court is directed to refuse any future filings from Ortiz related to thes e criminal convictions and sentences unless the filing is accompanied by the required filing fee or a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with a sworn affidavit containing the

2 Del. Super. Ct. Crim. R. 61(i)(5). 3 See, e.g., Fountain v. State , 288 A.2d 277, 278-79 (Del. 1972) (hol ding that the failure to allege an essential element of a criminal of fense in the information did not constitute a jurisdictional defect). 4 Ortiz v. State , 2015 WL 6783158 (Del. Nov. 5, 2015); Ortiz v. State , 2019 WL 417881 (Del. Feb. 1, 2019).3 certifications required by 10 Del. C. § 8803(e) 5 and that motion is first granted by

the Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to affirm is GRANTED and the judgment of the Su perior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice

5 Section 8803(e) of Title 10 of the Delaware Code provides: When a court finds that a litigant has abus ed the judicial proc ess by filing frivolous or malicious litigation, the court may enjoin that litigant from filing future claims without leave of court. When so enjoine d, any future requests to file claims must be accompanied by an affidavit certifying that: (1) The claims sought to be litigated have never been raised or disposed of before in any court; (2) The facts alleged are true and correct; (3) The affiant has made a diligent and good faith effort to determine what relevant case law controls the legal issues raised; (4) The affiant has no reason to believe the claims are foreclosed by controlling law; and (5) The affiant understands that the affidav it is made under pena lty of perjury.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,669
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    123,320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           3,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,897
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         82,953
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,000
<COMMON>                                         1,270
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,130
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,897
<SALES>                                         41,475
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,979
<CGS>                                           35,188
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,535
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   211
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  93
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,444
<INCOME-TAX>                                       933
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,511
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,511
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10


</TABLE>
#### Ernest Lee CHRISTOPHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1024.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### SOUTHERN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Harry M. CROW, Sr. and Margaret M. Crow, his wife, Appellees.

No. 72-745.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 8, 1973.

Harry M. Hobbs, Tampa, for appellant.

Allen R. Samuels, St. Petersburg, for ap-pellees.

MANN, Chief Judge.

Southern Title Insurance Company insured a mortgage in which Housing Development Corporation was mortgagee and of which Mr. and Mrs. Crow are the ultimate assignees. The mortgage was held invalid for failure of Housing Development to comply with the Truth-in-Lending Act. Upon a determination of their loss judgment was entered for the Crows.

Analysis of the policy shows why the trial judge was correct: Southern insur*295ed “Housing Development Corporation *and/or its assigns,”*including <(each successor in interest in ownership thereof.” It excludes defects “known to the insured Claimant.” Appellant reads this as if it said “named insured,” and that is the fallacy in its argument. There is no claim that either of the “insured *claimants”*knew of the defect, and while the defense might be good against the original insured, it is not available against the appellees, who took without notice of the defective title.

Affirmed.

HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ„ concur.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



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



                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

          PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1934



                           PROFESSIONAL BANCORP, INC.
                           --------------------------
              (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter



       PENNSYLVANIA                 0-11223                  95-3701137
       ------------                 -------                  ----------
(State or other jurisdiction      (Commission              (IRS Employer
of incorporation)                  File Number)            Identification No.)



     606 BROADWAY, SANTA MONICA, CA                       90401
     ------------------------------                       -----
   (Address of Principal Executive Offices)             (Zip Code)




        Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 310-458-1521
                                                            ------------






<PAGE>



ITEM 5.     OTHER EVENTS
            ------------

         Joel W. Kovner, an option holder of Professional Bancorp, Inc.
("Bancorp") stock options, exercised all of his options to purchase 276,515
shares of common stock of Bancorp pursuant to Bancorp's 1990 and 1992 Stock
Option Plans. Mr. Kovner paid an aggregate exercise price of 3,489,964.53
to Bancorp on March 17, 1998 for the exercise of the options. According to a
13-D filing filed by Mr. Kovner on March 24, 1998, he has disposed of all of the
common stock received in the option exercise.


                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.



                                  PROFESSIONAL BANCORP, INC.


Dated:  March 30, 1998            By: /S/ MELISSA LANFRE
                                  MELISSA LANFRE, Chief Financial
                                  Officer



                                      - 2 -
United States of America 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Washington, D.C. 20580 

Division of Advertising Practices

 October 23, 2020

Via Electronic Mail (lbrett@bbbnp.org) 

Laura Brett, Esq. 

Vice President 

National Advertising Division 

112 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor 

New York, NY 10016 

Re: Advertising by International Institute of Health, also d/b/a Doc of Detox, for 

Black Gold humic acid supplement 

Dear Ms. Brett: 

We have reviewed the National Advertising Division’s referral of International Institute 

of Health, also d/b/a Doc of Detox, (“Doc of Detox”) regarding advertising claims for its Black 

Gold humic acid supplement.1 We understand that this referral arose out of a monitoring case. 

NAD challenged, among other things, claims that Black Gold treats, cures, or prevents a variety 

of diseases and serious conditions. We understand that Doc of Detox refused to participate in the 

NAD process. Accordingly, you referred this matter to the Federal Trade Commission for our 

review. 

Following communications with Doc of Detox, we received confirmation that the 

advertiser has agreed to discontinue all claims, made expressly or by implication, that Black 

Gold treats, cures, or prevents diseases and serious conditions. Accordingly, we have 

determined not to take additional action at this time. In reaching this conclusion, we considered 

a number of factors including resource allocation and enforcement priorities, the nature of any 

FTC Act violation, and the type and severity of any consumer injury. 

1

 Dr. Darrell Wolfe is the owner and operator of Doc of Detox, a Canadian entity that operates under a variety of 

names including International Institute of Health, International Health Initiative, and International Training Institute 

of Health. Both Dr. Wolfe and Doc of Detox are located in British Columbia, Canada, but they have marketed and 

offered for sale Black Gold to U.S. consumers. 
Laura Brett, Esq. 

October 23, 2020 

Page 2 

The staff’s decision is not to be construed as a determination that a violation may not 

have occurred, just as the pendency of an investigation should not be construed as a 

determination that a violation has occurred. The Commission reserves the right to take such 

further action as the public interest may require. The FTC appreciates your referral and the 

opportunity to assist in supporting the NAD.

Very Truly Yours, 

Carolyn L. Hann 

Chief of Staff for Advertising Practices 

s/ Carolyn L. Hann
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7901 

To require the Administrator for General Services to obtain an antivirus 

product to make available to Federal agencies in order to provide the 

product to individuals whose personally identifiable information may have 

been compromised. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 31, 2020 

Mr. CARTWRIGHT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator for General Services to obtain 

an antivirus product to make available to Federal agencies in order to provide the product to individuals whose 

personally identifiable information may have been compromised. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘A Necessary and Tar5 geted Impediment to Viruses Act’’ or the ‘‘ANTI Viruses 

6 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7901 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR PROVISION OF ANTIVIRUS 

2 SOFTWARE TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AF3 FECTED BY DATA BREACH. 

4 (a) REQUIREMENT TO PROCURE ANTIVIRUS PROD5 UCT.— 

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator for Gen7 eral Services shall procure an antivirus product suit8 able for Federal agencies to provide to individuals 

9 whose personally identifiable information may have 

10 been compromised. 

11 (2) DEADLINE.—As soon as practicable after 

12 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Adminis13 trator shall issue a solicitation for vendors to provide 

14 the antivirus product described in paragraph (1). 

15 Not later than 1 year after such date, the Adminis16 trator shall award the contract for the product. 

17 (b) REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ONE-YEAR LICENSE

18 FOR USE OF ANTIVIRUS PRODUCT.—A Federal agency 

19 that experiences a compromise in its computer systems re20 sulting in the loss of personally identifiable information 

21 shall provide to any individual directly affected a one-year 

22 license of the antivirus product procured under subsection 

23 (a). 

24 (c) FEDERAL AGENCY.—In this section, the term 

25 ‘‘Federal agency’’ has the meaning provided the term ‘‘Ex26 ecutive agency’’ in section 105 of title 5, United States 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7901 IH

1 Code, and also includes the United States Postal Service 

2 and the Postal Regulatory Commission. 

3 (d) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—The funds used by a Fed4 eral agency to carry out this Act shall be derived from 

5 amounts made available to the agency for operating ex6 penses. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         June 18, 2018.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 12, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 67 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2018-167, CP2018-239.                

Elizabeth Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2018-12954 Filed 6-15-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 3.2F

                          CERTIFICATE OF ELIMINATION
                     OF SERIES B CONVERTIBLE PARTICIPATING
                                PREFERRED STOCK


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

         Pursuant to Section 151(g) of the General Corporation Law of
                             the State of Delaware


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


     P-Com, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("P-Com"), desires to eliminate from
its Certificate of Incorporation the Certificate of Designations, Preferences
and Rights of Series B Convertible Participating Preferred Stock, which was
filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on December 21, 1998.
In this regard, the following resolutions were duly adopted by written consent
of the Board of Directors of P-Com, June 10, 1999:

            WHEREAS, no shares of Series B Convertible Participating Preferred
Stock are presently outstanding and no such shares will be issued pursuant to
the Certificate of Designations, Preferences and Rights of Series B Convertible
Participating Preferred Stock, which was filed with the Secretary of State of
the State of Delaware on December 21, 1998, as amended (the "Certificate"); and

            WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the Corporation to eliminate
all matters set forth in the Certificate from the Corporation's Certificate of
Incorporation;

            NOW, THEREFORE, be it:

            RESOLVED, that the Certificate be eliminated from the Corporation's
Certificate of Incorporation; and

            FURTHER RESOLVED, that the officers of the Corporation be, and they
hereby are authorized and directed to take all actions necessary or desirable to
effectuate the foregoing resolutions, including without limitation executing and
filing appropriate documents with the Secretary of State of the State of
Delaware.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate in his
capacity as Secretary of P-Com on behalf of P-Com.

                                            P-COM, INC.


                                            By: /s/ Warren T. Lazarow
                                               -----------------------------
                                                Warren T. Lazarow, Secretary
#### Douglas D. BATCHELOR, Patricia S. Spohrer, William Spohrer, Airline Service Co., Compania de Servicios Aerovias, S. A., and Transportes Aereos Nacionales, S. A., Appellants, v. LING KAI K’UNG, individually, etc., Appellee.

No. 70-629.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 10, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.