alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HAWKEYE SECURITY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter K. WOODWARD and Eva Jo Woodward, both individually and d/b/a Double Diamond Partnership, Defendants-Appellees, and Ricky Dean Kerber and Linda Kerber, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 87CA0980.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Oct. 27, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 25, 1988-.

Certiorari Denied Feb. 13, 1989.

*1253Anderson, Campbell *&*Laugesen, P.C., Laird Campbell, Denver, for plaintiff-appel-lee.

Stem, Newton *&*Peters, P.C., Ronald S. Stem, Granby, for defendants-appellants.

SMITH, Judge.

Ricky Dean and Linda Kerber (Kerbers) appeal a declaratory judgment construing the language of a policy exclusion entered in favor of Hawkeye Security Insurance Company (Hawkeye). We affirm.

This action was commenced by Hawkeye against its insured, the Woodards, d/b/a Double Diamond, and the Kerbers. Hawk-eye provided general liability insurance coverage to its insured, who was engaged in the business, inter alia, of renting snowmobiles. Ricky Kerber was seriously injured as a result of the negligent use, by a third person, of a snowmobile rented from Double Diamond.

Kerber claimed, in a separate action, that Double Diamond knew the snowmobile would be used by the person who caused the injury and that it therefore was liable on a theory of negligent entrustment. Hawkeye denied coverage based on the following special endorsement exclusion to its policy which provided that: “It is agreed that this insurance does not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the ownership, maintenance, use or rental of snowmobiles.” It was also stipulated that, because Hawkeye was unwilling to provide coverage relative to the use or rental of snowmobiles, its insured had obtained separate snowmobile insurance from another carrier.

Hawkeye asserted, and the trial court agreed, that the language of the special endorsement was so clear as to require no interpretation; hence the rationale of *United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Day,*657 P.2d 981 (Colo.App.1982) and *Douglass v. Hartford Insurance Co.,*602 F.2d 934 (10th Cir.1979) were not applicable for purposes of determining the meaning of the term “rental” as used in the special endorsement. We agree with that analysis.

Regardless of whether the snowmobile was operated by another, it is undisputed that it was rented by the insured.. Consequently, the unambiguous agreement must be enforced according to its express terms without our creating an ambiguity by torture of its words and phrases. *See Mid-Century Insurance Co. v. Liljestrand,*620 P.2d 1064 (Colo.1980).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

BABCOCK and REED, JJ., concur.
**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**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CBRE Realty Finance, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kenneth J. Witkin, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: November 6, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF

THE ESTATE OF

JOSE LIDIO ROMO, DECEASED.

 

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-16-00034-CV

Appeal from the

Probate Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC#2009-P00624)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant all costs in this Court. This decision shall be certified below for 

observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Hughes, J., and Larsen, J. (Senior Judge)

Larsen, J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment
Todd C. Emerson, #8175 444 SouthRiver Road St. George, Utah, 84790 Telephone: (435) 634-3530 Facsimile: (435) 634-3505 Attorney for SkyWest Airlines, Inc.

Inthe Matter of: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

# RECEIVED APR -4 2014 

## HEARING DOCKET

PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE Sky West Airlines, Inc. FDMS No. FAA-2013-0292 FAA Case No. 2012NM060025 Judge: Richard C. Goodwin

Complainant and Respondenthave conferred and have agreed to the following posthearingbriefing schedule: May 7, 2014- Complainant's Briefis due. June 6, 2014- Respondent's Briefis due. June 16, 

## 2.oT4- Complainant's Rebuttal Briefis due. DATED this 31'' day ofMarch, 2014.

Todd C. Emerson Attorney for SkyWestAirlines, Inc.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that onthis 31"' day ofMarch, 2014, I causedto be served the foregoing PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE via E-mail aud United States mail, first class postage pre-paid, onthe following: The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin Office ofHearings, M-20 1200 New JerseyAvenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor, Rm El2-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 {E-mail and U.S. Mail} FederalAviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Suite 2Wl000 {U.S. Mail} Robert Spitzer Federal Aviation Administration NorthwestMountain Region, ANM-7 !601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, Washington 98057 {E-mail and U.S. Mail}



### 2
# L_2009070DE.01001901.xml

| 14.3.2009 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 70/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2009

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 70/19

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 561/2006 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 15. März 2006 zur Harmonisierung bestimmter Sozialvorschriften im Straßenverkehr und zur Änderung der Verordnungen (EWG) Nr. 3821/85 und (EG) Nr. 2135/98 des Rates sowie zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 3820/85 des Rates

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 102 vom 11. April 2006
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 102 vom 11. April 2006

Seite 8, Artikel 13 Buchstabe h:

anstatt:

| „h) | Fahrzeuge, die von den zuständigen Stellen für Kanalisation, Hochwasserschutz, Wasser-, Gas- und Elektrizitätsversorgung, von den Straßenbauämtern, der Hausmüllabfuhr, den Telegramm- und Telefonanbietern, Radio- und Fernsehsendern sowie zur Erfassung von Radio- bzw. Fernsehsendern oder -geräten eingesetzt werden;“ |
| --- | --- |

„h)

Fahrzeuge, die von den zuständigen Stellen für Kanalisation, Hochwasserschutz, Wasser-, Gas- und Elektrizitätsversorgung, von den Straßenbauämtern, der Hausmüllabfuhr, den Telegramm- und Telefonanbietern, Radio- und Fernsehsendern sowie zur Erfassung von Radio- bzw. Fernsehsendern oder -geräten eingesetzt werden;“

muss es heißen:

| „h) | Fahrzeuge, die in Verbindung mit Kanalisation, Hochwasserschutz, Wasser-, Gas- und Elektrizitätsversorgung, Straßenunterhaltung und -kontrolle, Hausmüllabfuhr, Telegramm- und Telefondienstleistungen, Rundfunk und Fernsehen sowie zur Erfassung von Radio- bzw. Fernsehsendern oder -geräten eingesetzt werden;“. |
| --- | --- |

„h)

Fahrzeuge, die in Verbindung mit Kanalisation, Hochwasserschutz, Wasser-, Gas- und Elektrizitätsversorgung, Straßenunterhaltung und -kontrolle, Hausmüllabfuhr, Telegramm- und Telefondienstleistungen, Rundfunk und Fernsehen sowie zur Erfassung von Radio- bzw. Fernsehsendern oder -geräten eingesetzt werden;“.

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Frank McKenney and Ongage Drilling Systems, L.L.C.

Appellate case number: 01-14-00600-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-40091

Trial court: 215th District Court of Harris County

Relators OnGage Drilling Systems, L.L.C. and Frank McKenney have filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus seeking relief from the trial court’s July 14, 2014 order granting Plaintiffs’ 

Emergency Motion for Expedited Discovery. Relators have filed an Emergency Motion for 

Temporary Relief Pursuant to Rule 52.10, requesting that we stay the trial court’s order pending 

resolution of their petition.

Relators’ motion is granted IN PART and denied IN PART. We STAY the following 

portion of the July 14, 2014 order:

“It is further ORDERED that Defendants produce the following devices by end of 

business on July 15, 2014 to a neutral forensic computer expert, to be agreed upon by the parties:

1. Former-Employee Defendants’ electronic storage devices that were connected to an 

INROCK computer between January 1, 2013 and July 14, 2014 or that contained 

INROCK data; and

2. Former-Employee Defendants’ personal and business computers used since January 1, 

2013 to which the storage devices were attached.”

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. 

The stay is in place pending further order of this Court, but the stay does not prohibit 

Plaintiffs from seeking electronic discovery, provided that the Defendants are afforded the 

protections required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 295 

S.W.3d 309, 321–22 (Tex. 2009), and any other applicable law. All relief not expressly granted 

herein is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court
Date: July 21, 2014
Exhibit 31.2    CERTIFICATION   I, John E. Mack, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of International Power Group, Ltd.;  2.Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements 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 small business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the small business issuers board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.   Date:  November 3, 2006    /s/ John E. MackJohn E. Mack(Chief Financial Officer)
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JOEL MARTINEZ, DC# S31701, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2711 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed June 27, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Susan Maulucci, Judge. Joel Martinez, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Linsey Sims-Bohnenstiehl, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KELLY, VILLANTI, and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
# L_2006080EN.01004401.xml

| 17.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 80/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 80/44

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 449/2006

of 16 March 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 10 to 16 March 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of barley issued in Regulation (EC) No 1058/2005.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 March 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 March 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 174, 7.7.2005, p. 12.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
Termination of Agreement Letter



 Exhibit 10.123 
 [Mikart, Inc. Letterhead] 
 October 27, 2006 
 TEAMM Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
 3000 Aerial Center Parkway 
 Suite 110 
 Morrisville, North Carolina 27560 
  

	Attn:	    Martin G. Baum, 

        President and Chief Executive Officer 
  

	 	Re:	Manufacturing and Supply Agreement, dated as of 


	 	    	June 6, 2003 (the “Agreement”), between Mikart, Inc. 


	 	    	(“Mikart”) and TEAMM Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“TEAMM”) 

 Dear Martin: 
 By executing
this letter below, Mikart and TEAMM hereby terminate the Agreement effective as of the date hereof. Notwithstanding anything in the Agreement to the contrary, neither party shall have any further obligation thereunder to the other, except with
respect to Sections 2.3, 3.2, 3.3(f), 8.1, 10.1 and 13.10 thereof (all of which shall survive the termination of the Agreement). 
 Please
indicate your agreement with the foregoing terms by executing this letter in the space provided below. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	MIKART, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/  Miguel I. Arteche

		 	Miguel I. Arteche, Chairman and
		 	Chief Executive Officer


 Agreed: 
  

			
	TEAMM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/  Nicholas J. Leb

		 	Nicholas J. Leb
		 	Vice President, Finance
# L_2006080EN.01003701.xml

| 17.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 80/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 80/37

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 444/2006

of 16 March 2006

granting no refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 582/2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular the third subparagraph of Article 31(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds of skimmed milk powder (2), provides for a permanent tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 582/2004 of 26 March 2004 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds of skimmed milk powder (2), provides for a permanent tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 14 March 2006. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 580/2004 of 26 March 2004 establishing a tender procedure concerning export refunds for certain milk products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 14 March 2006.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the permanent tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 582/2004, for the tendering period ending on 14 March 2006, no refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in Article 1(1) of that Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 16 March 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 67. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1239/2005 (OJ L 200, 30.7.2005, p. 32).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 90, 27.3.2004, p. 58. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1814/2005 (OJ L 292, 8.11.2005, p. 3).

3

---
EXHIBIT  10.14


                            THIRD AMENDMENT TO LEASE

THIS  THIRD  AMENDMENT  TO  LEASE  ("Third Amendment") dated August 10, 2006 for
reference  purposes,  is  made and entered into by and between L.A.T. INVESTMENT
CORPORATION,  a  California  corporation  ("Landlord"),  and  COMPUMED,  INC., a
Delaware  corporation  ("Tenant").

                                    RECITALS

The  Third  Amendment  is  made  with  reference  to  the  following  facts  and
objectives:

A.     Landlord and Tenant entered into a written lease dated June 24, 1999 (the
"Lease")  in  which  Landlord  leased  to Tenant and Tenant leased from Landlord
certain  premises  located  at 5777 West Century Boulevard, Suites 1285 and 315,
Los  Angeles,  California  90045 (the "Premises"). The Lease has been amended by
First  and  Second  Amendments.

B.     Tenant  desires  to  extend  the  Lease Term, and Landlord agrees to such
extension  on  and  subject  to the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in
this  Third  Amendment.

                                    AGREEMENT

NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of  the  mutual covenants set forth herein,
Landlord  and  Tenant  do  hereby  amend  the  Lease  as  follows:

1.     Lease  Term

The  Lease Term shall be extended for a period of one (1) year ("Extended Term")
commencing  on  September  1,  2006  and  expiring  on  August  31,  2007.

2.     Rent

The  Monthly  Rent  for  the Premises shall be $12,176.74 effective September 1,
2006.

3.     Tenant  Improvements

Upon  execution  of  this Third Amendment, Landlord shall have the carpet in the
Premises  steam  cleaned  and  walls  painted  as  needed.

4.     Excused  Rent

Notwithstanding  section  5.2 of the Lease, Landlord hereby conditionally waives
Tenant's obligation to pay one half (1/2) of the Monthly Rent in months 6 and 12
of  the  Extended  Term  for  a  total  of  two  (2)  months, subject to all the
provisions  of  section  5.2  of  the  Lease.

<PAGE>

                                  RATIFICATION.
                                  -------------

Except  as  modified  expressly  or  by necessary implication hereby, all of the
terms  and  conditions of the Lease shall remain unchanged and in full force and
effect.  To  the  extent the provisions of this Third Amendment are inconsistent
with  the  provisions of the Lease, the provisions of this Third Amendment shall
control  and  supersede  such  inconsistent  provisions  in  the  Lease.

IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties have executed this Third Amendment as of the
date  set  forth  below.

TENANT:

COMPUMED,  INC.,  a  Delaware  corporation

By:  /s/  John  G.  McLaughlin
     -------------------------
       John  G.  McLaughlin

Date  Signed:  August  23,  2006


LANDLORD:

L.A.T.  INVESTMENT  CORPORATION,  a  California  Corporation

By:  /s/  Bruce  H.  Nahid
     ---------------------
       Bruce  H.  Nahid

Date  Signed:  October  25,  2006