alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Powell et al. *v.*Garden Court Corporation, Appellant.

Argued October 16, 1941.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Rhodes and Hire, JJ.

*373November 19, 1941:

*Michael A. Foley,*with him *Henry I. Koplin,*for appellant.

*Maurice E.*Cohen, with him *Mareline,*McElweefor appellees.

Pee Curiam,

This is an appeal by defendant in an action in trespass to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by minor plaintiff. Defendant filed no affidavit of defense and offered no testimony. Its request for binding instructions was refused. After the jury returned a verdict for defendant, the court below granted plaintiffs’ motion for a now trial. Defendant assigns as error the granting of plaintiffs’ motion and the refusal to give binding instructions in its favor.

Minor plaintiff was a patron of a swimming pool operated by defendant. Steel lockers were furnished for storage of clothes, etc. After returning irom swimming she reached for her purse on the top shelf of her locker, which Avas one in a section of six. As she did so the lockers fell upon her, and she was injured. The lockers were not fastened to the floor but were tied to each other by wire. There was testimony that at least four hours before the accident the lockers were “very loose,” and that the wires which connected them Avere sagging. *374Other wires which were intended to secure the hack of the one section to the back of another section were found broken.

We have carefully examined the testimony, and are convinced that it supports the ruling of the court below in refusing binding instructions. See *Cathcart v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,*120 Pa. Superior Ct. 531, 535, 183 A. 113; *Vetter v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.,*322 Pa. 440, 454, 185 A. 613; *Sakach et ux. v. Antonoplos,*298 Pa. 130, 134, 148 A. 58.

The court below was of the opinion that “the verdict of the jury was perverse/’ and that justice demanded that plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial be granted. The order will be affirmed.

We will not reverse an order awarding a new trial in a civil case, where the court below is of the opinion that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence or that the interests of justice require if, unless a palpable abuse of discretion is disclosed or unless an erroneous rule of law, which in the circumstances necessarily controls the outcome of the case, is certified by the trial judge as the sole reason for his action. *Reese v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.,*336 Pa. 299, 300, 9 A. 2d 394; *Hess v. Steiner et al.,*144 Pa. Superior Ct. 249, 250, 19 A. 2d 560. See, also, *Weinfeld v. Funk,*342 Pa. 160, 20 A. 2d 206; *Kerr et ux. v. Hofer et al.,*341 Pa. 47, 17 A. 2d 886.

The order granting a now trial is affirmed.
Exhibit 13

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 Nokia Corporation (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2013, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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: April 30, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ RISTO SIILASMAA
|                     |  |  |  | Name:               |  | Risto Siilasmaa                              
|                     |  |  |  | Title:              |  | Chairman and interim Chief Executive Officer 
|                     |  | 
|Date: April 30, 2014 |  |  |  | /s/ TIMO IHAMUOTILA
|                     |  |  |  | Name:               |  | Timo Ihamuotila                              
|                     |  |  |  | Title:              |  | Chief Financial Officer and interim President
#### Arminda MONTIJO, Appellant, v. EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Washington, D. C. corporation, Appellee.

No. 71-357.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 7, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
`Exhibit 31.1

                            Section 302 Certification
                        of David R. Schroder (President)`

---

`CERTIFICATION


     I, David R. Schroder, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MACC Private Equities
Inc.;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a  material  fact or  omit to sate a  material  fact  necessary  to make  the
statements made, in light of the circumstances  under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

     3. Based on my knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
condition,  results of  operations  and cash flows of the  registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;

     4. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

          a) Designed such disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
     disclosure controls or procedures to be designed under our supervision,  to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant,  including its
     consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made  known to us by  others  within  those
     entities,  particularly  during the  period in which  this  report is being
     prepared;

          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
     and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
     controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
     based on such  evaluation;  and c) Presented in this report our conclusions
     about the effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on
     our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

     5. The registrant's other certifying  officers and I have disclosed,  based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial  reporting,  to
the  registrant's  auditors  and the audit  committee of  registrant's  board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
     control over financial  reporting which are reasonably  likely to adversely
     affect the registrant's  ability to record,  process,  summarize and report
     financial information; and

          b) any fraud,  whether or not material,  that  involves  management or
     other employees who have a significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
     controls.`

---

`Date: December 28, 2006

           /s/ David R. Schroder
         ---------------------------
         David R. Schroder
         President and Secretary`
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration PERSONAL DELIVERY September 23, 2015 Office of the Chief Counsel

Federal Aviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue, SW Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Appellate Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Enforcement Division, AGC-300 800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 

# RECEIVED SEP 2 32015 HEARING DOCKET

Re: In the Matter ofNational Power Corporation, DocketNos. FAA-2013-0620

Dear Sir or Madam: Respondent, through its counsel, Martin A. Blumenthal, Esq., has agreed to a 30-day extension oftime for the FAAto file its reply to Respondent's appeal briefinthe above-referenced case. The reply brief, which is currently due on October 2, 2015, will be due onNovember 1, 2015. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.233(c)(l),the FAArequests that the FAA Decisionmaker grant the extension oftime. Sincerely, 

# c;Q

Charles Raley Senior Attorney EnforcementDivision, AGC-300 Tele: (202) 267-3357 Fax: (202) 267-5106 Charles.raley@faa.gov Cc by Certified Mail: Martin A. Blumenthal, Esq. 1 Northfield Plaza, Suite 300 Northfield, IL 60093 marty@blumenthallaw.com
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 19, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-30199 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KENNETH WAYNE PEARSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:01-CR-10012-3

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Kenneth Wayne Pearson appeals the sentence he received after this court remanded his case for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Pearson argues that the district court misapplied the Guidelines by not granting him a two-level reduction in his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for his mitigating role. Given that Pearson’s role was not peripheral to the Brown Drug Organization, the denial of such an adjustment was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Caldwell , 448 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006); United Stated v.No. 06-30199 -2- Villanueva , 408 F.3d 193, 204 (5th Cir.) , cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 268 (2005)
. The district court’s 188-month sentence, which was a deviation from the Guidelines, was not an abuse of discretion. The district court articulated its reasons for the sentence and those reasons reflected the totality of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Armendariz , 451 F.3d 352, 358 n.5 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED.
eworld_ex1010.htm


EXHIBIT 10.10


 





 


April 17, 2013


 


Qi Long Chen


Hong Kong Baoying Investment Holdings Limited


Suite 3711-12, Office Tower Langham Place,8 Argyle Street


Mongkok, Kowloon, Hong Kong


Tel:(852) 2117-0478 Fax: (852)2117-9609


 


Mr. Chen,


 


This is to advise you that the Strategic Joint Venture Agreement (the “Agreement”) between E-World USA Holding, Inc. and Hong Kong Baoying Investment Holdings Limited, dated and signed on August 6, 2012, is formally terminated.


 


Paragraph 3 of the Agreement provides as follows: Party B is responsible for investment. First investment will occur 10 days after signing of this contract of US$5 million to be wired to Party A’s Hong Kong or USA bank account.


 


As you know, no such payment was received within 10 days of the signing of the Agreement and in fact no such payment has been received to date.


 


On September 7, 2012, we wrote you as follows: If your company is unable to fulfil the contract, please cancel it and inform us — as early as possible.


 


The next day you replied: [W]e are temporarily unable to make fund available for that plant. We can, however, continue to negotiate with you when the conditions are met.


 


We have heard nothing further from you in this regard and given the passage of time and your continued breach of the terms of the Agreement without any further attempt at negotiations on your part, you have abandoned the Agreement of which you are in breach and the Agreement is formally terminated as of the date of this letter.


 


Regards,


 


Dinghua Wang


CEO and President


E-WORLD USA HOLDING, INC.
#### Board of Park Commrs. of Cleveland Metropolitan Park Dist., Appellant, *v.*City of Cleveland, Appellee.

(No. 30690

Decided May 29, 1946.)

*Messrs. Green, Woods, Lausche & Wilmot,*for appellant.

*Mr. Lee C. Howley,*director of law, and *Mr. Joseph F. Smith,*for appellee.

*697It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal■ dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman, Bell, Williams, Turner, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 17

- 1364 Filed October 25, 2017

IN THE INTEREST OF A.B., Minor Child, H.W., Father, Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Barbara H. Liesveld , District Associate Judge.

A father appeals the termination of his parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 232 (2017)

. AFFIRMED.

Deborah M. Skelton, Walford, for appellant father. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Meredith L. Lamberti, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Kimberly A. Opatz of Linn County Advocate, Cedar Rapids, guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ.2

MCDONALD, Judge. Henry appeals the termination of his parental rights in A.B. pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116 (2017). He argues there was insufficient evidence to terminate his rights under section 232.116(1)(e) and (f). He also contends termination was not in the best interests of A.B. based on his bond with the child. We review de novo proceedings terminating parental rights. See In re
A.M. , 843 N.W.2d 100, 110 (Iowa 2014). The legal framework for termination appeals is well established and does not need to be repeated here

. S ee id. ; In re
M.W. , 876 N.W.2d 212, 219

– 20 (Iowa 2016) (stating review is de novo and setting forth the applicable “three

- step inquiry”). “When the juvenile court terminates parental rights on more than one statutory ground, we may affirm the juvenile cou rt’s order on any ground we find supported by the record.” In re A.B. , 815 N.W.2d 764, 774 (Iowa 2012). There is clear and convincing evidence to terminate Henry’s parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(e). To terminate pursuant to this provision, the State was required to prove, as relevant here, “the parents have not maintained significant and meaningful contact with the child during the previous six consecutive months and have made no reasonable efforts to resume care of the child despite being given the oppo rtunity to do so.” Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e). The child at issue is one of Henry’s seventeen or eighteen children from different mothers. The child at issue is nine years of age, but Henry was unsu re of her age at the termination hearing. This is unsurprising; Henry has seen her but a handful of times in her life

. They have no shared history or bond. Since the initiation of this proceeding, Henry has done nothing3

to build a relationship with A.B. or have A.B. placed in his care. He did not attend visitations. Even at the termination hearing, Henry t estified he just wants to be able to visit A.B. and have her know her half

- siblings rather than assume care of the child. Termination of Henry’ s par ental rights is in the best interest of the child. The child wishes to remain in her current placement with her grandmother. There is no basis for this court to preserve the parent

- child relationship pursuant to section 232.116(3). For these reasons, w e affirm the termination of Henry’s parental rights in
A.B.
AFFIRMED

.
AIRCRAFT INSURANCE POLICY 

COVERAGE IDENTIFICATION PAGE 

U. S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 

I A CAPITAL STOCK COMPANY 

I ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES: 1340 3 NORTHWEST FREEWAY 

I HOUSTON , TEXAS 77040-6094 

YOUR POLICY NUMBER 

Prior Policy No . 

AC3001464-00 

NAME INSURED YOUR AGENT ' S NAME AND ADDRESS 

Director's Chair Productions, LLC & the managers/members thereof Costello Insurance Associates, Inc. 

YOUR ADDRESS 

5239 Pembroke Way 

San Ramon, CA, 94582 

Post Office Box 28280 

Tempe, Al.., 85285 

POLICY PERIOD : 12 :01 A.M. STANDARD TIME AT YOUR ABOVE ADDRESS FROM : 03/04/2015 TO: 10/24/2015 

LOCATION OF AIRCRAFT:The aircraft will be principally based at PRIVATE STRIP, SAN RAMON, CA 

DESCRIPTION OF AIRCRAFT : You have told us that each of the aircraft below (1) has an FAA standard airworthiness 

certificate unless noted below*; and (2) is solely and unconditionally owned by you unless noted differently in Item 1 

and/or 11 or endorsements we issue. 

50 0 $ 

NOS: ANNUAL ENDORSEMENT 

FORMS: 

Form Name Form Version Form Title 

{08/1 0) PROTECTING THE PRIVACY OF INFORMATION 

{08/10) WAR HIJACKING AND OTHER PERILS EXCLUSION 

AlP 1106 (08/10) Document Number: 592772 Page 1 of 3 
AIRCRAFT INSURANCE POLICY 

COVERAGE IDENTIFICATION PAGE 

U. S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY YOUR POLICY NUMBER 

Prior Policy No . 

I A CAPITAL STOCK COMPANY 

I ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES: 13403 NORTHWEST FREEWAY 

I HOUSTON, TEXAS 77040-6094 

{08/1 0} 

{08/1 0} 

(01/12) 

(08/1 0) 

(08/1 0) 

(04/14) 

(04/14) 

12 13 

(12/13) 

12 13 

12 13 

AIRCRAFT POLICY CONDITIONS 

HELICOPTERIROTORCRAFT 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA AMENDATORY ENDORSEMENT 

POLICY CHANGES 

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY 

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF TERRORISM INSURANCE COVERAGE 

EXCLUSION OF CERTIFIED ACTS OF TERRORISM 

CONDITIONAL EXCLUSION OF TERRORISM 

CONDITIONAL EXCLUSION OF TERRORISM 

NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS POTENTIAL RESTRICTIONS OF TERRORISM 

COVERAGE 

NOTICE TO POLICYHOLDERS POTENTIAL RESTRICTIONS OF TERRORISM 

COVERAGE 

AC3001464-00 

No pilot certificate or medical certificate required 

Open Piiot Warranty 

UAV operators as approved by the Named Insured. No pilot certificate or medical certificate required 

Named Pilots 

No Named Pilots 

Named Pilots with Requirements 

AlP 1106 (08/1 0) Document Number: 592772 Page 2 of 3 
AIRCRAFT INSURANCE POLICY 

COVERAGE IDENTIFICATION PAGE 

U. S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY 

I A CAPITAL STOCK COMPANY. 

I ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES: 13403 NORTHWEST FREEWA Y 

I HOUSTON, TEXAS 77040-6094 

UAV0001 

Your Operation for Aerial Photography and/or Mapping 

UAV0002 

Your Operation for Aerial Photography and/or Mapping 

YOUR POLICY NUMBER 

Prior Policy No . 

AC3001464-00 

ADDITIONAL INTEREST : Payment for Aircraft Physical Loss or Damage under Coverage F or G will be made to you and 

Countersigned this __ day of ____ _ 

Authorized Representative 

AlP 1106 (08/10) Document Number: 592772 Page 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PAUL FRANK KATONKA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 229 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PAUL FRANK KATONKA,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 230 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of November, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
wmtn_ex1022.htm


Exhibit 10.22


 


 



	 	
 WATERFRONT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.





 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


	 	 
	 	 





 


COMMERCIAL LEASE ADDENDUM II


 







June 4, 2013










	
  

	
This agreement is to extend the term of the original Lease dated April 1, 201 1 entered into by WATERFRONT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT L.L.C., LESSOR and





                                   WEST MOUNTAIN ADVISOR, INC hereinafter referred to as LESSEE or TENANT


 


With this ADDENDUM a one-year option shall be executed, this will leave no other options on the original lease dated April 1, 2011.  The one-year option shall run April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014.  Rent for this term shall $2000.00 per month.







There are no other changes to said lease at this time.  All other terms and conditions of the lease dated April 1, 2011 shall remain unchanged.







The undersigned Lessee hereby agrees to the above addendum terms.


 







                                  Date: June 5, 2013




 


                                By: /s/ Jenny Hixon


                                Jenny Hixon


                                Lessor







                                By: /s/ Greg Schifrin


                                Greg Schifrin


                                Lessee
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

 AIR AND RADIATION

May 1, 2015

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Summary of Trailer-Related Factory Shipment Data from ACT Research

FROM: Jessica Brakora, Mechanical Engineer, Assessment and Standards Division

TO: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and 

Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2 - Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827

EPA and NHTSA held a subscription to the trailer-related data compiled by ACT Research. The 

following charts were created using their trailer data and this information helped the agencies to better 

characterize the trailer industry.

Figure 1 ACT Research's Annual Factory Shipments for All Trailer Types
2

Figure 2 ACT Research's Annual Factory Shipments for Several Trailer Types

Figure 3 ACT Research's 2013 Factory Shipments by Trailer Type
3

Figure 4 ACT Research's 2013 Factory Shipments by Main Trailer Type

Figure 5 ACT Research's Annual Fraction of Each Trailer Type in Factory Shipments
4

Figure 6 ACT Research's Factory Shipments of Each Trailer Type for Years 2011, 2012, and 2013