alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ross & Cohen, Respondent, v Kurtz Steel Corporation, Appellant. Thomas M. Curtis, Nonparty Appellant.

[654 NYS2d 375]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered March 28, 1996, which, in an action to recover a legal fee, dismissed defendant’s counterclaims, order, same court and Justice, entered February 7, 1996, which dismissed defendant’s affirmative defense, and judgment, same court and Justice, entered March 5, 1996, which imposed a sanction of $2,500 against defendant’s attorney, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The sanction was properly imposed against defendant’s attorney for attempting to interject Judiciary Law § 487 claims against plaintiff law firm that were completely without merit *173in fact (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]). Defendant’s affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction was properly dismissed for lack of proof. The first counterclaim alleging that plaintiff unlawfully retained a portion of the settlement proceeds of the underlying action in violation of the terms of the settlement agreement therein was properly dismissed because plaintiff’s right under Judiciary Law § 475 to retain the settlement proceeds as a lien could not be affected by the parties’ settlement in the underlying action (see, *People v Keeffe,*50 NY2d 149, 156). The second counterclaim alleging defendant’s payments of plaintiff’s fees under duress and plaintiff’s billing of disbursements that it did not actually incur is lacking in factual support. The remaining counterclaims, all alleging various acts of malpractice, viewed in a light most favorable to defendant, show nothing more than an error of professional judgment *(see, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan v Beltramini,*157 AD2d 590). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fenton Artwell, Appellant.

[736 NYS2d 591]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward Davidowitz, J.), rendered December 9, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The gist of the court’s instruction to each of the jurors who asked to speak to the judge and asked for information was simply a reminder that all inquiries on the law and the evidence must be in writing. These reminders were not supplemental instructions, but rather were ministerial directives which did not require defendant’s presence *(People v Herrmann,*280 AD2d 349; *People v Nova,*198 AD2d 193, *lv denied*83 NY2d 308; *People v Dixon,*192 AD2d 338, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1013). Similarly, even if we were to accept defendant’s argument that the court implicitly instructed these jurors to convey these directives to the rest of the jury, there was no improper “delegation” of judicial authority *(see, People v Bonaparte,*78 NY2d 26).

Defendant’s remaining claims require preservation *(see, People v Agramonte, 87*NY2d 765), and we decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no support in the record for defendant’s assertions that the jury deliberated without the presence of all of its members and that the confidentiality of jury deliberations was breached. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Sullivan, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
#### Tommy PARISH et al. v. Sharlette Ann Parish VIATOR.

No. 45975.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 7, 1970.

William E. Andrews, Jr., Purvis, for appellants.

Simrall, Aultman & Pope, James W. Backstrom, Hattiesburg, for appellee.

*679JONES, Justice:

This is a child custody case from the Chancery Court of Lamar County.

The law as to these cases has been stated numerous times in previous decisions of this Court, and this case presents no new question of law. We cannot say that the chancellor was erroneous in his finding of facts, and we therefore affirm the case.

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and PATTERSON, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.
#### ZAYRE CORP. and the Travelers Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Jose Luis URRECHAGA and the Florida Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 42898.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 21, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

DEKLE, J., dissents.
#### John Myles KENNEDY, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGY, Respondent.

No. 71-698.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 21, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Highlands
Bankshares, Inc. Form 10KSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,196
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             834
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,494
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     33,057
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           8,559
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             8,620
<LOANS>                                        124,601
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (1,257)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,847
<DEPOSITS>                                     157,109
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,367
<LONG-TERM>                                        142
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,734
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 178,847
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 11,135
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,715
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   333
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                14,183
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,093
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,103
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,080
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      135
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (30)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,570
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,967
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,013
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,013
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.92
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.32
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       381
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,319
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      337
<RECOVERIES>                                       140
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,257
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,257
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
No. 10797.

#### The Lima Locomotive and Machine Co. *v.*The Champion Iron Co.

Decided January 26, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Allen county.

*Mr. W. H. Leete*and *Messrs. Prophet & Eastman,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. George E. Crane*and *Messrs. Wheeler & Bentley,*for'defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Spear and Price, JJ., concur.
-  HIPAA for Individuals      -  HIPAA & Reproductive Health 
  -  Mental Health & Substance Use Disorders 
  -  Your Rights Under HIPAA        -  Your Medical Records 
    -  Employers and Health Information in the Workplace 
    -  Personal Representatives 
    -  Family Members and Friends 
    -  Court Orders and Subpoenas 
    -  Notice of Privacy Practices 
    -  Right to Access 
    -  HIV and HIPAA 
  -  FAQs 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# HIPAA for Individuals

Learn your rights under HIPAA, how your information may be used or shared, and how to file a complaint if you think your rights were violated.

##             Your Rights Under HIPAA          

Learn more about your important rights under HIPAA and how your health information must be kept private and secure.

##             HIPAA FAQs for Individuals          

Read frequently asked questions about HIPAA for individuals.

##             Other Languages          

Español (Spanish), 繁體中文 (Chinese - Traditional), 简体中文 (Chinese – Simplified), Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese), 한국어 (Korean), Tagalog (Tagalog), Русский (Russian), العربية (Arabic), Français (French), Português (Portuguese), Kreyòl Ayisyen (French Creole), Polski (Polish), Italiano (Italian), Deutsch (German), 日本語 (Japanese), فارسی (Farsi)

Content last reviewed June 17, 2017
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the Company), for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended December 15, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                          |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|                          |  | 
|Dated: September 27, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Roger M. Laverty                 
|                          |  |  |  | Roger M. Laverty                     
|                          |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



Note: A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 3370

_____________________________
E ARL J AMES R AY , J R

. , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Mark Borello , Judge

. October 16, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and K ELSEY and W INOKUR , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Earl James Ray, Jr., pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Exhibit 4.17

---





PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

Paul Reynolds
  CEO/BT Wholesale
  pp 7.15
  Faraday Building
  1 Knightrider Street
  London
  EC4V 5BT

17 October 2006

Dear Paul,

Amendment to Director’s Service Contract

From 1 October 2006, BT is operating a flexible
retirement policy with no fixed retirement age. This means that BT's contractual
retirement age of 60 will cease. BT will, however, maintain the legal right to
retire people from age 65 or above under the default retirement procedure
defined in the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.

It is therefore necessary to amend your
Director's Service Contract dated 26 November 2001 to omit Paragraph 16.1.1
which provides that the Agreement terminates when you reach the age of
60.

To acknowledge your acceptance of this variation
of your Service Contract, will you please return the enclosed duplicate of this
letter with the form of acceptance duly signed.

Yours sincerely

/s/ Larry Stone

L W STONE

Accepted and Agreed

|          |  | /s/Paul
      Reynolds | 
|--------- |  | ---------------------- | 
|Signature |  |                        | 
|          |  | Paul Reynolds          | 
|          |  |                        | 
|Dated     |  | 6 November 2006        | 
|          |  |                        | 



|Larry StoneCompany SecretaryBT GroupBT
      Centre81 Newgate StreetLondon EC1A 7AJUnited Kingdom | tel
      faxmob email | +44 (0)20 7356 5237+44
      (0)20 7356 6135+44 (0)7740 136290larry.stone@bt.com | BT Group
      plcRegistered Office:81 Newgate Street, London EC1A
      7AJRegistered in England and Wales no.
      4190816www.bt.com
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
Exhibit 32.2

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

as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB, filed pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, of The First Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donna T. Rutland, the
Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Donna T. RutlandName:

Donna T. RutlandTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

November 9, 2005


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 First Bancshares, Inc., and will be retained by The First
Bancshares, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EQK REALTY INVESTORS I FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,861
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       135,875
<OTHER-SE>                                    (140,707)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,102
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,191
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,053
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,219
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    150
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                150
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       150
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02
        

</TABLE>
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1042 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide support to university 

law school programs that are designed to provide legal assistance to 

veterans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. MURPHY) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide 

support to university law school programs that are designed to provide legal assistance to veterans, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Legal Sup5 port Act of 2013’’. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1042 IS

1 SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS SUPPORT 

2 FOR UNIVERSITY LEGAL CLINICS THAT AS3 SIST VETERANS. 

4 (a) SUPPORT AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of Vet5 erans Affairs may provide support to one or more univer6 sity law school programs that are designed to provide legal 

7 assistance to veterans. 

8 (b) ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS.—Programs of university 

9 law schools which may receive support under subsection 

10 (a) may include programs that assist veterans with— 

11 (1) filing and appealing claims for benefits 

12 under laws administered by the Secretary; and 

13 (2) such other civil, criminal, and family legal 

14 matters as the Secretary considers appropriate. 

15 (c) FINANCIAL SUPPORT.— 

16 (1) IN GENERAL.—The support provided a pro17 gram under subsection (a) may include financial 

18 support of the program. 

19 (2) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT.—The total 

20 amount of financial support provided under sub21 section (a) in any fiscal year may not exceed 

22 $1,000,000. 

23 (3) FUNDING.—Amounts for financial support 

24 under subsection (a) shall be derived from amounts 

25 appropriated or otherwise made available to the 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1042 IS

1 Medical Services account of the Department of Vet2 erans Affairs. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
;­
J. Harvey Alexander 32Passaic Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068-1618 March 6, 2010
The Honorable Ray LaHood Secretary ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590
Dear Secretary LaHood: Delta Air Lines has submitted an application to provide new nonstop service from the U.S. to Tokyo's Haneda airport. As a retired employee ofDelta, I enthusiastically support this application. Under the new aviation agreement withJapan, Haneda will 

### be reopened to

# u. S. carriers for the final time since 1976. Because ofits convenient location near central Tokyo, Haneda is the preferred airport for business travelers. Delta employees, and many ofits retirees, have worked for many years to build Delta's business in Japan, and no U.S. airline has invested more in Tokyo than Delta. Delta has a strong record ofcompetitive trans-Pacific service. But

### the reopening ofHaneda will putthat investment andDeltajobs atrisk ifthey are unable tocompete. Delta's major competitors, the Star.and oneworld Alliances, have Japanese partners 

### that dominate service at Haneda. Delta, which does not have a Japanese partner, would be at a serious disadvantage unless it is given the opportunity tocompete at Haneda. IfDelta is provided with the Haneda slots they need, all three ofthe major airline alliances

- SkyTeam, Star and oneworld

- will be able to compete on a level playing field. That new competition would provide tremendous benefits for Delta's customers and Delta's employees. I urge you toapprove Delta's application and provide thefrequencies proposedto serve Haneda from Seattle, Detroit, LosAngeles and Honolulu. Sincerely,

1. Harvey Alexander 973 226-2646