alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Chemical Bank, Respondent, v Brout & Company et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David B. Saxe, J.), entered September 7, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the second and third causes of action for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In December 1983, plaintiff issued to Amfesco Industries Inc. $14.5 million credit in the form of an industrial revenue bond and a line of credit. Plaintiff has been unable to recover such indebtedness since Amfesco’s November 19, 1985 bankruptcy filing. Giving plaintiff the benefit of all possible favorable inferences which might be drawn from the complaint *(Arrington v New York Times Co.,*55 NY2d 433, *rearg denied*57 NY2d 669, *cert denied*459 US 1146), the complaint sufficiently sets forth a cause of action for accountants’ negligence under the criteria set forth in *Credit Alliance Corp. v Andersen & Co. (65 NY2d 536). The*accountants were aware that the financial reports audited by them would be used for a particular purpose and that plaintiff intended to rely upon them is made out by defendants’ knowledge of the terms of the industrial revenue bond, which included the requirement that audited financial statements be provided; defendants’ alleged participation, as a key advisor to Amfesco in obtaining financing, in an August 1983 meeting concerning those terms; and by Chemical’s receipt of Amfesco’s audited financial statement for fiscal year 1983 in the August-December 1983 interval. The crucial element that there be some conduct on the part of the accountants linking them to plaintiff which evinces the accountants’ understanding of plaintiff’s reliance is also sufficiently alleged here on the basis of such direct contact, and as amplified by alleged, repeated direct communications between plaintiff and defendants between June and November 1985 concerning Amfesco’s deteriorating financial condition *(Blair Communications v Reliance Capital Group,*157 AD2d 490). Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 694 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 694

   To remove the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Service to 
                            inspect apples.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 10, 2013

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To remove the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Service to 
                            inspect apples.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Apple Red Tape Elimination Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF AMS INSPECTION AUTHORITY OVER APPLES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of 
Agriculture, acting through the Agricultural Marketing Service, shall 
have no authority to inspect apples prior to export.
                                 <all>
```
#### Patrick Bistrian, Jr., Respondent, v Barry Bistrian et *578al., Appellants.

In an action to determine adverse claims to real property pursuant to RPAPL article 15, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered August 23, 1989, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

In support of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the defendant Peter Bistrian submitted evidence in admissible form which established that in August of 1969 he acquired title to certain property located in the Village of Southampton. He averred that he never "conveyed or granted any of [his] interest” in the subject property, and that he "never signed or delivered any instrument of conveyance” to the plaintiff. In light of these sworn statements, which were fully supported by numerous documents, the burden was shifted to the plaintiff, as the party resisting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, to produce evidence showing the existence of a triable issue of fact. This the plaintiff failed to do.

The plaintiff’s essential claim is that he became the owner of a 25% interest in the subject property by virtue of an "agreement” dated September 11, 1969. According to this agreement, the plaintiff was supposed to enter into a joint venture with the two defendants. As part of this "agreement”, the three parties would share ownership in the subject property, upon which the business of their joint venture was to be conducted, and the plaintiff would have a 25% interest in that property. There is no proof that plaintiff ever participated in the joint venture which was contemplated in the 1969 agreement.

This document cannot reasonably be considered as an instrument intended to convey an interest in real property. The "agreement” contains no recitation of consideration, and it contains no words which could be construed as a manifestation of an intent to have the agreement serve as the vehicle for the conveyance of title. Also, the parties expressly described the agreement as an "interim” one, and they expressly stated that it was their "intention to enter into a more formal partnership or corporate arrangement for the * * * ownership of [the subject] property”. A more formal agreement was *579never made. Under these circumstances, the interim agreement between the parties was "obviously not intended as a muniment of title” *(Cohen v Cohen,*188 App Div 933; 43 NY Jur 2d, Deeds, § 18).

Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of any issue of fact requiring a trial with respect to the defendants’ ownership of the subject property, summary judgment should have been granted to the defendants. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.
ELECTRONIC RECORD

\om~m

COA # 07-13-00254-CR OFFENSE: 22.011

STYLE: Eddie Jones v.The State ofTexas COUNTY: Lubbock

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 137th District Court

DATE: 07/10/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 2011-432,527

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Eddie Jones v. The State of Texas CCA#: IOW-W

PRO SE

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

5f*Jtf

DATE: /1*10/111*1

JUDGE: fPi/jrfs*^

Pfct> SB PETITION

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

is g^/vaO

DATE 03 ]®L Oj 20if

yM.

JUDGE

Cu/m*-

Petition CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION, as Receiver for Guaranty 

Bank,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC. 

and GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-56675

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08558-MRPMAN

ORDER*

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION, as receiver for Strategic 

Capital Bank,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC.,

 Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-56781

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08415-MRPMAN

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE No. 13-56783

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

JUN 8 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 

CORPORATION, as Receiver for Colonial 

Bank,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; et al.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-06911-MRPMAN

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR 

FRANKLIN BANK, S.S.B.,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES 

CORPORATION and DEUTSCHE BANK 

SECURITIES, INC.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-57014

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-03279-MRPMAN

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Mariana R. Pfaelzer, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 8, 2015

Pasadena, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, REINHARDT, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

The stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss these appeals under Federal 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) is granted. Each party shall bear its own costs.
 3 

These appeals are DISMISSED.
----

----

I Informacije

Svet

----

SKLEPI SVETA (IZOBRAŽEVANJE/MLADINA/KULTURA)

21. februar 2005

o izobraževanju in usposabljanju v okviru vmesnega pregleda Lizbonske strategije

(2005/C 85/01)

SVET EVROPSKE UNIJE –

ob upoštevanju

POUDARJA:

OPOZARJA:

PRIPOROČA:

EVROPSKI SVET VABI, DA

----

----

SKLEPI SVETA (IZOBRAŽEVANJE, MLADI IN KULTURA)

21. februar 2005

glede vprašanja mladine v okviru vmesnega pregleda Lizbonske strategije

(2005/C 85/02)

SVET EVROPSKE UNIJE –

ob upoštevanju:

POUDARJA

SE STRINJA

MENI, DA

POZIVA EVROPSKI SVET, NAJ

----

Komisija

----

Menjalni tečaji eura (1)

6. aprila 2005

(2005/C 85/03)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Vir: referenčni menjalni tečaj, ki ga objavlja ECB.

----

----

Seznam ustreznih spričeval, priznanih po postopku iz odstavka 3 člena 18 Direktive 2001/25/ES o minimalni ravni izobraževanja pomorščakov (1)

(Stanje z dne 31. decembra 2004)

(2005/C 85/04)

(Besedilo velja za EGP)

----

(1)  Nizozemska in Združeno kraljestvo nista priznala posameznih ustanov za pomorsko izobraževanje in usposabljanje, ampak sta izbrala priznanje vseh ustanov za pomorsko izobraževanje in usposabljanje, ki jih odobrijo zadevne tretje države.

----

----

Predhodna priglasitev koncentracije

(Št. primera COMP/M.3773 – Lehman Brothers/Europe Realty/IHG Portfolio)

Primer za poenostavljeni postopek

(2005/C 85/05)

(Besedilo velja za EGP)

----

(1)UL L 24, 29.1.2004, str. 1.

(2)  Dostopno na spletni strani DG COMP:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/consultation/simplified_tru.pdf.

----

Popravek

----

Popravek Razpisa za predloge za posredne dejavnosti RTR v okviru s posebnega programa za raziskave, tehnološki razvoj in predstavitev: Oblikovanje Evropskega raziskovalnega prostora

(Uradni list Evropske unije C 63 z dne 15. marca 2005)

(2005/C 85/06)

Na strani 15, v Prilogi, točka 8, v tabeli, prvi stolpec:

namesto:

„1.2.4.2.2“

beri:

„1.2.3.3“.

Na strani 16, v Prilogi, točka 13, v tabeli, drugi stolpec, prva vrstica:

namesto:

„1.2.4.2.1“

beri:

„1.2.3.3“.

----
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

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

In connection with this Report on Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2013, or the Report, of PennantPark
Floating Rate Capital Ltd., or the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur H. Penn, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  
|------------------
|/s/ Arthur H. Penn
|Arthur H. Penn    
|August 8, 2013
CONSIGNE DE NAVIGABILITE

N° F-2004-178

Diffusion :

A

Date d’émission :

10 novembre 2004

Page :

1/2

Cette consigne de navigabilité est publiée par la DGAC pour le compte 

de l'AESA, autorité du pays de conception du matériel concerné. Cette consigne de navigabilité fait l'objet d'une 

traduction en anglais.

Le texte français constitue la référence.

Direction 

générale

de 

l’aviation

civile

France

Edition

du GSAC

Un aéronef concerné par une consigne de navigabilité ne peut être utilisé 

qu’en conformité avec les exigences de cette consigne de navigabilité,

sauf accord de l’autorité du pays d’immatriculation.

Airworthiness Directive(s) étrangère(s) correspondante(s) :

Sans objet

Consigne(s) de navigabilité remplacée(s) :

Néant

Responsable de la navigabilité du matériel :

EUROCOPTER

Certificat(s) de type n° 84

Fiche(s) de données n° 157

Type(s) de matériel(s) :

Hélicoptères AS 350

Chapitre ATA :

64

Objet :

Rotor de queue - Languette bord de fuite des pales arrière

1. APPLICABILITE :

Hélicoptères AS 350 B, BA, BB, B1, B2, B3 et D, équipés de pales arrière référencées : 355A 12.0040 

tous points et 355A 12.0050.04, du numéro de série 8400 à 9224 inclus avant application de la fiche de 

réparation FR n° 238 ou de la CT 64.10.00.872 (voir FME).

2. RAISONS :

Cette consigne de navigabilité (CN) fait suite à la découverte de plusieurs cas de décollements importants 

de la languette de bord de fuite sur des pales arrière.

La perte de cette languette conduit à une augmentation importante du niveau vibratoire de l'appareil.

3. ACTIONS IMPERATIVES ET DELAIS D’APPLICATION :

Les mesures suivantes sont rendues impératives à compter de la date d'entrée en vigueur de la présente 

CN :

3.1. Au plus tard dans les 100 heures de vol sans dépasser 3 mois (à la première échéance atteinte), 

poser des rivets supplémentaires sur la languette de bord de fuite des pales référencées au § 1 selon 

les directives décrites dans le § 2.B de l'Alert Service Bulletin EUROCOPTER AS 350 n° 64.00.05 

cité en référence.

3.2. Avant montage de pales détenues en rechange et référencées au § 1, appliquer les directives 

décrites dans le § 2.B de l'ASB en référence.

4. DOCUMENT DE REFERENCE :

Alert Service Bulletin EUROCOPTER AS 350 n° 64.00.05 "correspond à la fiche de réparation FR n° 283".

(Toute révision ultérieure approuvée de cet ASB est acceptable).

n/CG
CONSIGNE DE NAVIGABILITE

N° F-2004-178

Diffusion :

A

Date d’émission :

10 novembre 2004

Page :

2/2

5. DATE D'ENTREE EN VIGUEUR :

20 novembre 2004.

6. REMARQUE :

Pour les questions concernant le contenu technique des exigences de cette CN, contacter :

EUROCOPTER (STXI) - Aéroport de Marseille Provence 13725 Marignane Cedex - France

Tél. : 33 (0) 4 42 85 97 97 - Fax : 33 (0) 4 42 85 99 66

E-Mail : Directive.technical-support@eurocopter.com

7. APPROBATION :

Cette CN est approuvée sous la référence AESA n° 2004-10843 du 03 novembre 2004.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 623 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure the continued 

access of Medicare beneficiaries to diagnostic imaging services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 20, 2013 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to ensure 

the continued access of Medicare beneficiaries to diagnostic imaging services. 

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 ‘‘Diagnostic Imaging 

5 Services Access Protection Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR IMAGING SERVICES. 

7 Section 1848(b)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 

8 U.S.C. 1395w–4(b)(4)) is amended by adding at the end 

9 the following new subparagraph: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 623 IS

1 ‘‘(E) LIMITATION ON APPLICATION OF

2 MULTIPLE PROCEDURE PAYMENT REDUC3 TION.—The Secretary may not apply a multiple 

4 procedure payment reduction policy to the pro5 fessional component of imaging services fur6 nished on or after 30 days after the date of the 

7 enactment of this subparagraph, until the Sec8 retary publishes in the Federal Register the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(i) An analysis of the information 

11 used in the final rule to implement the 

12 physician fee schedule under this section in 

13 2013 to determine what, if any, efficiencies 

14 exist within the professional component of 

15 imaging services when 2 or more studies 

16 are performed on the same patient on the 

17 same day. 

18 ‘‘(ii) Detailed information on— 

19 ‘‘(I) which activities in the vi20 gnettes in such rule were assigned re21 duction percentages of 0, 25, 50, 75, 

22 and 100 percent; 

23 ‘‘(II) how such percentage reduc24 tions for the pre-, intra-, and postVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:47 Mar 26, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S623.IS S623

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 623 IS

1 service work were determined and cal2 culated; and 

3 ‘‘(III) the clinical aspects that 

4 went into those decisions.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Prepared by R.R. Donnelley Financial -- EX-10.22




 Exhibit 10.22 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 

TO MANUFACTURING SERVICES AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 1 is made by and A10 NETWORKS, INC. (“A10 Networks”) a California corporation, with principal offices
located at 3 W Plumeria Drive, San Jose, CA 95134 U.S.A., and, LANNER ELECTRONICS (USA)., a California corporation with principal offices located at 41920 Christy Street, Fremont CA 94538 U.S.A., with respect to the MANUFACTURING SERVICES AGREEMENT
between the parties having an Effective Date of December 8, 2006 (the “Agreement”). 
 Capitalized terms used in this
Amendment No. 1 shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement and in Amendment No. 1, respectively. 
 In
accordance with Section 13.7 (“Integration; Modification”) of the Agreement, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 

(1) The definition of “Manufacturer” shall mean collectively (1) Lanner Electronics Inc., a company organized under the laws of
Taiwan, having a principle place of business at 7F, 173 Datong Road Section 2, Xizhi District, New Taipei City, 22184, Taiwan, and (2) its wholly owned subsidiary Lanner Electronics (USA), a California corporation with principal offices
located at 41920 Christy Street, Fremont CA 94538 U.S.A. 
 This Amendment No. 1 supersedes all prior discussions and understandings
between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. Except as expressly modified and amended in this Amendment No. 1, all other provisions of the Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect and unchanged, and are ratified
hereby. 
 The effective date of this Amendment No. 1 is June 27, 2013. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the authorized representatives of the parties hereto have signed this Amendment No. 1 as of the effective date set
forth above. 
  

									
	LANNER ELECTRONICS (USA)	  		  	A10 NETWORKS, INC.
					
	By:	  	  /s/ Jackie Law
	  		  	By:	  	  /s/ Todd Kleppe

	Name:	  	Jackie Law	  		  	Name:	  	Todd Kleppe
	Title:	  	Chief Operating Officer	  		  	Title:	  	Senior Director Global Ops
	Date:	  	6/28/2013	  		  	Date:	  	6/28/2013










			
	Lanner:
	
	LANNER ELECTRONICS, INC.
		
	By:	 	  /s/ Jill Chen

	Name:	 	Jill Chen
	Title:	 	General Manager of NC BU
	Date:	 	2013/6/27
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

MARCIAL GARCIA and
MARTINA GARCIA

,

Appellant s

,

v. Case No. 5D 15

- 1628

TOWER HILL SIGNATURE
INSURANCE COMPANY

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed October 21, 2016

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for He rnando County

, Richard Tombrink, Jr. , Judge.

Timothy W. Weber, and Joseph P. Kenny, of Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellant s

.

Scot E. Samis and Ashley R. Kellgren , of Traub, Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry,

LLP , St. Petersburg, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Marcial and Martina Garcia appeal the trial court's final judgment in favor of Tower

Hill Signature Insurance Company, which, despite initially denying the Garcias ' sinkhole

claim, ultimately extended coverage after the Garcias filed suit and a neutral evaluator

confirmed the sinkhole damage. In finding that Tower Hill’s initial denial of coverage did2

not breach the Garcias’ insurance policy, the trial court correc tly applied then

- binding

precedent recently disapproved by the Florida Supreme Court in Johnson v. Omega Ins.

Co.

, 41 Fla. L. Weekly S415 (Fla. Sept. 29, 2016). As such, we reverse the final judgment

and remand for further proceedings consistent with Johnson

.

REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.

LAWSON, C.J., TORPY and WALLIS, J J., concur.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4568

_____________________________

IESHA CHIQUITA MCGASTER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Thomas V. Dannheisser, Judge.

September 25, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

RAY, C.J., and B.L. THOMAS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Philip J. Massa, West Palm Beach, for Appellant.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Sharon S. Traxler, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 32: Rule 13a-14(b) Certifications





The undersigned officers certify that this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China Sure Water (USA) Inc.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to China Sure Water (USA) Inc. and will be retained by China Sure Water (USA) Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





August 15, 2011
/s/ Xinhong GuoXinhong Guo (Chief Executive Officer)August 15, 2011
/s/ Xiaojie GuoXiaojie Guo (Chief Financial Officer)