alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Sara A. Squire et al., Respondents, v Ralph Greenberg et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis Kaplan, J.H.O.), entered March 29, 1990, which after a hearing sustained service on defendants and denied the traverse, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs commenced this action, for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an automobile accident in Manhattan, by delivery of a copy of the summons and complaint to the Secretary of State, and mailing copies to defendants by certified mail, at the Connecticut address listed on defendants’ vehicle registration and insurance forms. The certified mail was returned marked "return to sender, moved, authorized forwarding time expired” and "Addressee unknown”. A copy of the summons and complaint with proof of service on the Secretary of State was thereafter sent to defendants’ insurance carrier. Issue was joined by an answer containing, *inter alia,*an affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to strike the jurisdictional defense, and defendants cross-moved to dismiss for failure to obtain jurisdiction. By order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Greenfield, J.), entered September 26, 1989, the court found service incomplete pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 253, but ruled that if the address given by defendants was erroneous, they would be estopped from claiming lack of jurisdiction. The court referred the matter to a Special Referee. After a hearing, the Referee sustained service and denied the traverse, finding the defendants were estopped from raising the jurisdictional defense by giving the incorrect address. We agree.

Persons involved in a motor vehicle accident are required to divulge their name and residence address, including street and number (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 [1] [a]), so as to allow for commencement of a civil action to recover for injuries arising out of the accident *(Greenwood v White,*25 AD2d 73). Willful misrepresentation of an address estops the defendants from claiming defective service under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 253 *(Stewart v McIntyre,*57 AD2d 831). Defendants also violated Vehicle and Traffic Law § 401 (3) and § 505 (5) by failing to notify the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of their *363change in address *(see, e.g., Treutlein v Gutierrez,*129 AD2d 791). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

# **SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**

 

 I, James L. Koenig, Chief Financial Officer of Eye Care International, Inc. certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350 as adopted by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| (1) | the amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) |  the information contained in theAnnual Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of Eye Care International, Inc.                |

Dated: April 27, 2004

|  | /s/ *James L. Koenig     *             James L. Koenig Chief Financial Officer |
|--|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Don HERVEY and Wanda Hervey, and Stan Chatman and Barbara Chatman, Appellants, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES and Yukon Travel Market, Inc., Appellees.

No. 63762.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

May 13, 1986.

As Corrected May 29 and June 30, 1986.

Stan Chatman, Chatman & Hoover, Yukon, for appellants.

Michael W. Hinkle, Holloway, Dobson, Hudson & Bachman, Oklahoma City, for appellees.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellants were plaintiffs below. They had purchased a reduced cost vacation package tour to Mexico from American Airlines through the Yukon Travel Market. They brought this suit for damages because it rained during their trip. Plaintiffs sought to recover $2,000.00 because inclement weather ruined their vacation and delayed their return home for an extra two days.

The trial court sustained the defendants’ motions to dismiss based upon plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim upon which relief could be based.

Plaintiffs appeal as to American Airlines. They assert that the legal basis for the claim rests in tort law; that American Airlines had a “duty” to warn and advise plaintiffs of the weather conditions which existed during the period the tours were advertised and tickets sold. They contend that the airline should have for-seen that their trip might be “rained out” and should have warned them, and that it was negligent in failing to do so.

*713We find no law nor theory of law which supports plaintiffs’ claims against defendant.

Just as taking a vacation carries with it the risk of encountering rainy weather, filing a frivolous and vexatious appeal carries with it the risk that the Supreme Court may impose attorney fees as costs.

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the record in this action together with the briefs and concludes that this appeal is patently frivolous, vexatious and wholly without merit.

Appellees’ attention is directed to 20 O.S. Supp.1982, § 15.1, providing for attorney fees on petition of the prevailing party for defending against a meritless appeal.

No reversible error of law appears and the judgment is affirmed under Rule 1.202(a), 12 O.S.Supp.1984, Ch. 15, App. 2.

AFFIRMED.

All the Justices concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 99

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of CheckFree Holdings Corporation
and Subsidiaries:

We have audited the consolidated financial statements of CheckFree Holdings
Corporation and Subsidiaries as of June 30, 1998 and 1999, and for the years
ended June 30, 1997, 1998 and 1999, and have issued our report thereon dated
August 9, 1999; such financial statements and report are included in your 1999
Annual Report to Stockholders and are incorporated herein by reference. Our
audits also included the financial statement schedule of CheckFree Holdings
Corporation and Subsidiaries, listed in Item 14. This financial statement
schedule is the responsibility of the Corporation's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion,
such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic
consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all
material respects the information set forth therein.

Atlanta, Georgia
August 9, 1999
<PAGE>   2
                       VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

                FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, 1998 and 1999


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                  BALANCE AS     AMOUNT       CHARGES
                                      OF       ASSUMED IN     TO COSTS    CHARGES TO
                                  BEGINNING     BUSINESS        AND         OTHER                   BALANCE AS OF
                                  OF PERIOD    COMBINATION    EXPENSES    DEDUCTIONS   DEDUCTIONS   END OF PERIOD
                                  ----------  ------------   ---------   -----------   ----------   -------------
<S>                               <C>           <C>          <C>         <C>            <C>         <C>
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts
    1997.....................       $2,279        1,000         9,196           --        8,258         4,217
    1998.....................        4,217          --          3,441           --        4,188         3,470
    1999.....................        3,470          309         1,246           --          595         4,430
Reserve for Returns and Chargebacks
    1997.....................          543          --          1,920           --        1,237         1,226
    1998.....................        1,226          --          2,080           --        1,362         1,944
    1999.....................        1,944          --          1,932           --        2,212         1,664
</TABLE>
# L_2006176EN.01008201.xml

| 30.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 176/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 176/82

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 981/2006

of 29 June 2006

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 31st partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) and in particular the second indent of Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 of 15 July 2005 on a standing invitation to tender to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (2), for the 2005/2006 marketing year, requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar to certain third countries.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the case may be, account being taken in particular of the state and foreseeable development of the Community and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to tender in question.

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

(3)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 31st partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1138/2005 the maximum amount of the export refund shall be 29,877 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 June 2006.

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

Done at Brussels, 29 June 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 39/2004 (OJ L 6, 10.1.2004, p. 16).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 185, 16.7.2005, p. 3.

2

---
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONS**I, B.K. Gogia, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of InferX Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer 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 establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin 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 andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness 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 asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 12, 2007 /s/ B.K. Gogia   B.K. Gogia   Chief Executive Officer
**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-Q of AgFeed Industries, Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Liangfan
      Yan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(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.





Dated:
                August 11, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Liangfan YanLiangfan
                YanChief
                Financial Officer





This
      certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

August 16, 2024

SC-2024-0430

Ex parte John Kaleb Gillespie PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: John Kaleb Gillespie 

v. State of Alabama) (Morgan Circuit Court: CC-19-89; Criminal Appeals: 

CR-2023-0692).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on August 16, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Wise, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Sellers, 

Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
##### 



Exhibit 10.17
 Execution Version
 BLOCKED ACCOUNT CONTROL AGREEMENT
(Shifting Control)
     second third




---



##### 



force majeure
    2




---



##### 



) shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of New York. The State of New York shall be the Depositarys jurisdiction for purposes of
the UCC (including, without limitation, Section 9-304 thereof). All parties hereby waive all
rights to a trial by jury in any action or proceeding relating to the Account or this Agreement.
  NORTH AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
    
    CITIBANK, N.A., as Collateral AgentBy:
    
    /s/ Steven E. Harfst
    
    By:
    
    /s/ Fernando MoreyraName: Steven E. Harfst
    
    Name:
Fernando MoreyraTitle: Chief Operating Officer
    
    
    Title: Assistant Vice PresidentAddress for
    
    
    
    Citibank, N.A.Notices:
    
    

    Agency & Trust Department388 Greenwich Street14th FloorFax No.:
    
    
    
    New York, NY 10013Attn: Fernando Moreyra, AVPFax No.: 212-816-5530CITIBANK, N.A.By:
    
    /s/ William J. Reynolds

Name: William J. ReynoldsTitle: Vice PresidentAddressFor Notices Citibank, N.A.Branch #86JFK International Airport  Building #72Jamaica, NY 11430Attention: William J. Reynolds, Jr.Fax No.: 718-632-0082




---



##### 



Re:
    
    Blocked Account Control Agreement dated as of April
27, 2005 (the Agreement) by and among Citibank, N.A., as
Collateral Agent, North American Airlines, Inc. and Citibank,
N.A.
   CITIBANK, N.A., as Collateral AgentBy:SignatureNameTitle:
|   | (1) |   | The                  Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended                  September 30, 2006 (the “Form 10-QSB/A”) fully                  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities                  Exchange                  Act of 1934, as amended; and |   |
|--------|-----|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|   | (2) |   | The                  information contained in the Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in                  all                  material respects, the financial condition and                  results of operations of the Company. |   |
|--------|-----|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|

|                                                      |                                                                                                                                             |                                            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                                                      | **VALLEY                      FORGE COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.**(Registrant)                                                                   |
|                                                      |                                                                                                                                             |                                            |
| Dated: April                      9, 2007  | By:                                                                                                                                    | /s/ Louis                      J. Brothers |
|                                                      | Louis                      J. Brothers                                                                                                           |
|                                                      | Chief                      Financial Officer(Principal                      Financial Officer,Principal                      Accounting Officer) |

----
#### In the Matter of Mary Landrigen, Appellant, v Colin Landrigen, Respondent.

Weiss, J. P.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Family Court of Rockland County (Stanger, J.), entered January 5, 1989, which, *inter alia,*dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, for sole custody of the parties’ child.

This proceeding involves opposing requests for custody of the parties’ four-year-old daughter. The sole issue raised on this appeal is the extent to which respondent should have been sanctioned pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with a midtrial disclosure order. Petitioner sought medical records, the names of witnesses to incidents, authorization to obtain medical records and reports, and certain other documents. Although Family Court found that respondent had failed to fully comply with the requests, the court refused to strike respondent’s pleading, finding that sanction to be unwarranted. The court held that the child, who was in essence an interested party whose best interest was the paramount issue before the court, would be adversely affected. Rather, the *1012court limited its relief to preclusion of those witnesses who respondent had not appropriately identified and to documentary evidence not already before the court or in petitioner’s possession. Petitioner contends that because the nondisclosure could be labeled intentional, it was error not to strike respondent’s pleadings and that sole custody of the child should have been given to her. We disagree.

The general rule is that a court should only impose a sanction commensurate with the particular disobedience it is designed to punish, and to go no further. Moreover, a court should strive to avoid a sanction which will adversely affect the interest of an innocent party. The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter lying within the sound discretion of the trial court *(Associated Mut. Ins. Co. v Dyland Tavern,*105 AD2d 892, 893). Under the circumstances presented, we are unable to conclude that Family Court abused its discretion.

Order affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.