alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### British West Indies Guaranty Trust Co., Ltd., et al., Appellants, v Banque Internationale A Luxembourg et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about May 11, 1990, which, *inter alia,*granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to its recommencement in the proper forum of the District Courts of and in Luxembourg, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

It is well-accepted policy that forum-selection clauses are *prima facie*valid. In order to set aside such a clause, a party must show that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust or that the clause is invalid because of fraud or overreaching, such that a trial in the contractual forum would be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of his or her day in court. *(The Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co.,*407 US 1, 12-18; *Rokeby-Johnson v Kentucky Agric. Energy Corp.,*108 AD2d 336, 339-341; *Di Ruocco v Flamingo Beach Hotel & Casino,*163 AD2d 270.) The contractual provision in this case, designating Luxembourg as the venue for any disputes, is clear and unambiguous. Plaintiffs do not allege any fraud with respect to the jurisdictional provision itself. *(See, Rokeby-Johnson v Kentucky Agric. Energy Corp.,*108 AD2d, *supra,*at 341.) Nor is there any evidence of overreaching; the allegations that plaintiff Grace Sanchez Brownlow, the signatory to the contract, did not read the provision, or that it was not brought specifically to her attention are of no avail, since, as a signatory to the contract, she is presumed to know the contents of the instrument she signed and to have assented to such terms. *(See, Imero Fiorentino Assocs. v Green,*85 AD2d 419, 420.)

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be unpersuasive. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-5

_____________________________

TRISHA UPTON REID,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County.

Leandra G. Johnson, Judge.

August 2, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Megan Long, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<page>								  EXHIBIT 31.02

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey D. Hahn, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation ("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant,
certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state 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 financial 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 officer 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 and 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 procedures and presented in this report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

   c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and


<page>
5.The registrant's other certifying officer 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 Demeter's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

  a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal controls 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 control over financial reporting.





Date:   March 15, 2004      /s/	Jeffrey D. Hahn
	Jeffrey D. Hahn
                             	Chief Financial Officer,
                             	Demeter Management Corporation,
                             	general partner of the registrant
# C_2017034EN.01018201.xml

| 2.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 34/182 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 34/182

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1920/2006 as regards information exchange, early warning system and risk assessment procedure on new psychoactive substances’

[COM(2016) 547 final — 2016/0261 (COD)]

(2017/C 034/31)

| Consultation | Council, 07/09/2016 |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Article 148(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

  [COM(2016) 547 final — 2016/0261 (COD)] |
| Section responsible | Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship |
| Adopted in plenary | 19/10/2016 |
| Plenary session No | 520 |
| Outcome of vote
  (for/against/abstentions) | 228/2/5 |

Consultation

Council, 07/09/2016

Legal basis

Article 148(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

[COM(2016) 547 final — 2016/0261 (COD)]

[COM(2016) 547 final — 2016/0261 (COD)]

Section responsible

Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship

Adopted in plenary

19/10/2016

Plenary session No

520

Outcome of vote

(for/against/abstentions)

228/2/5

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its Opinion on new psychoactive substances (EESC-2013-06166-00-00-AC-TRA), adopted on 21 January 2014 (1), it decided, at its 520th plenary session of 19 and 20 October 2016 (meeting of 19 October) to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned document.

1

Brussels, 19 October 2016.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Georges DASSIS

---

(1)  EESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on new psychoactive substances, COM(2013) 619 final — 2013/0305 (COD), COM(2013) 618 final — 2013/0304 (COD) (OJ C 177, 11.6.2014, p. 52).

1

---
#### Leonard L. BURCH et ux., Petitioners, v. CITY OF SARASOTA, a municipal corporation, Respondent.

No. 36037.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 28, 1967.

Dart, Bell & Dickinson, Sarasota, and C. Ray Greene of Greene, Greene & Ken-nelly, Jacksonville, for petitioners.

Wood, Scheb, Whitesell & Drymon, Sarasota, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

After oral argument on merits of the petition for certiorari to review the decision of City of Sarasota v. Burch, Fla.App., 192 So.2d 9, we find the petition is without merit and the writ heretofore granted is quashed.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, O’CONNELL and BARNS (Retired) JJ., concur.
**
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019 (the “Report”) of Solar Senior Capital Ltd. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, MICHAELS. GROSS, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. 

 
  
****/S/    MICHAEL S.GROSS********
**Name:** **Michael S. Gross****Date:** **May 6, 2019**
 
**
# C_2016011DE.01000501.xml

| 14.1.2016 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 11/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2016

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 11/5

---

Berichtigung der Bekanntmachung der Einleitung eines Antidumpingverfahrens betreffend die Einfuhren bestimmter kaltgewalzter Flachstahlerzeugnisse mit Ursprung in der Volksrepublik China und der Russischen Föderation

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 161 vom 14. Mai 2015
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 161 vom 14. Mai 2015

(2016/C 11/05)

Seite 9, Nummer 2, einleitender Satzteil:

Anstatt:

Anstatt:

„Bei der von der Untersuchung betroffenen Ware handelt es sich um flachgewalzte Erzeugnisse aus Eisen oder nicht legiertem Stahl oder anderem legiertem Stahl, ausgenommen nicht rostender Stahl beliebiger Breite, kaltgewalzt, weder plattiert noch überzogen und nur kaltgewalzt, ausgenommen:“

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen:

„Bei der von der Untersuchung betroffenen Ware handelt es sich um flachgewalzte Erzeugnisse aus Eisen oder nicht legiertem Stahl oder anderem legiertem Stahl, ausgenommen aus nicht rostendem Stahl, beliebiger Breite, kaltgewalzt, weder plattiert noch überzogen und nur kaltgewalzt, ausgenommen:“.

---
# C_2018076EN.01013601.xml

| 28.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 76/136 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 76/136

---

P8_TA(2016)0210

Cooperation agreement on a civil Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) with Korea***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 May 2016 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement on a Civil Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) between the European Community and its Member States of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (05977/2016 — C8-0116/2016 — 2015/0265(NLE))

(Consent)

(2018/C 076/25)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (05977/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (05977/2016),

| — | having regard to the draft Cooperation Agreement on a Civil Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (11516/2006), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Cooperation Agreement on a Civil Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part (11516/2006),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 172 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8–0116/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 172 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8–0116/2016),

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), Rule 108(7) and Rule 50(1) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), Rule 108(7) and Rule 50(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A8-0065/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A8-0065/2016),

| 1. | Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Korea. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Korea.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wendy Bummer Smythe, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: None of the issues raised by defendant on appeal warrants reversal. We find no reason to disturb the suppression court’s finding that defendant’s statement to the police disclosing the whereabouts of the body of the victim was voluntarily made. Defendant did not preserve for review her contention that certain testimony of a People’s witness was hearsay. In any event, the testimony was not hearsay because it constituted evidence of the victim’s intent to meet with defendant *(see, People v Malizia,*92 AD2d 154, 160, *affd*62 NY2d 755, *cert denied*469 US 932). Testimony concerning the possession of stolen property by defendant in the presence of the victim was admitted to prove one of the elements of the crime of intimidating a witness *(see,*Penal Law § 215.17 [2]), and also to prove a motive for the murder. The alleged improper remark by the prosecutor on cross-examination of defendant did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The court sustained defense counsel’s objection to the *1029question and gave a prompt curative instruction, which dispelled any claim of prejudice to defendant. The sentence was not harsh and excessive.

Finally, the court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the execution of a search warrant. The contention that the search warrant was executed after 9:00 p.m. was not preserved for review because it was not raised at the suppression hearing *(see, People v Gonzalez,*55 NY2d 887; *People v Smith,*145 AD2d 517, *lv denied*73 NY2d 1022). Moreover, the return and inventory shows that the warrant was executed at 7:00 p.m. Defendant erroneously contends that the search warrant was defective because it failed to contain "[t]he name of the issuing court” (CPL 690.45 [1]). The warrant substantially complied with the mandate of CPL 690.45. Its stated venue was in Erie County and it was signed by a County Court Judge of Erie County who was designated as "JCC” *(see, People v Pizzuto,*101 AD2d 1024). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the warrant was issued upon probable cause. Defendant’s argument that there was no verification of the informant’s reliability fails because the informant was an identifiable citizen *(People v Cantre,*95 AD2d 522, *affd on opn below*65 NY2d 790). (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Henry's Law Parameters for Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro -2-butene (CAS# 692-49-9)
```

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19138]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1084-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing 2018 Operational Entitlements Filing 
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180827-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1085-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2018-08-25 Encana to 
be effective 8/25/2018.
    Filed Date: 8/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180827-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/10/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 28, 2018.
 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19138 Filed 9-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
. \, .: CORPORATION .. ·; ,, 

May 16,2013 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

RE: Continuation of Alaska Airlines' fSSential Air Service at Adak, Alaska, 

Docket DOT -OST -2000-8556 ,/ 

The Aleut Corporation, the regional native corporation representing the Aleutian area, strongly supports 

the resolution submitted by Adak City Manager Layton Lockett titled: 

A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO SELECT 

ALASKA AIRLINES AS THE ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE PROVIDER FOR ADAK, ALASKA 

Many miles separate the island of Adak from the major passenger and cargo hub in Anchorage and 

without a major jet carrier it will be cut off from the lifeline of infrastructure. The Adak-based fisheries 

have relied on Alaska Airlines for shipping fish and transporting employees for many years. In 

accordance with the Adak Strategic Development Plan, jet service by Alaska Airlines is vital to the 

enhanced economic development on the island. 

The Aleut Corporation sincerely thanks the Department of Transportation for the Essential Air Service 

program and looks forward to continued air service to Adak. 

Thomas Mack, President 

Aleut Corporation
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 23(a)


                          Independent Auditors' Consent

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
Esenjay Exploration, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated April 10, 2000,
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Esenjay Exploration, Inc. for
the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Houston, Texas
September 29, 2000
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130172 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130172 

 COA: 265616 

Saginaw CC: 98-016662-FC 

JOE LEE JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 7, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 27, 2006 

Clerk
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 February 2005

(2005/C 50/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Pemstar Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Allen J. Berning,
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.


By:   /s/  Allen J. Berning
   ----------------------------
         Allen J. Berning
     Chief Executive Officer
July 10, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or any
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.