alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
50215.

#### TAYLOR v. B. & W. ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. et al.

Submitted February 4, 1975

Decided April 24, 1975.

Clark, Judge.

This is an appeal by a co-defendant electrical subcontractor from a summary judgment granted a plaintiff materialman for the amount sued for materials supplied in construction of a school building.

This appeal does not involve the co-defendant who was the general contractor and who tendered into court the amount for which a judgment had been sought against it as co-defendant, this being done as a stakeholder. This co-defendant also pleaded a cross claim against the co-defendant subcontractor.

In seeking its summary judgment against the subcontractor, plaintiff relied upon an affidavit from its president. The co-defendant subcontractor filed a counter-affidavit along with a motion to strike plaintiffs affidavit or a portion thereof. Without passing on this latter motion the trial judge entered a judgment for the plaintiff.

A review of the complex facts1 involved in this case indicates the counter-affidavit filed by the subcontractor created genuine issues of material fact in support of its defenses and counterclaim. Accordingly, the judgment below must be reversed. Code Ann. § 81A-156; *Smith v. Sandersville Production Credit Assn.,*229 Ga. 65 (189 SE2d 432); *Watkins v. Nationwide Ins. Co.,*113 Ga. App. 801 (149 SE2d 749).

In view of our finding the existence of such conflict as to material facts it is unnecessary for us to pass upon the remaining enumerations of error.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Pannell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.*

*635*Harrison, Martin, Childs & Foster, H. Fielder Martin, John R. Grimes,*for appellant.

*B. W. Crecelius,*for appellees.

1

It is suggested to the bar that lawyers should number paragraphs in affidavits filed in summary judgment proceedings.
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Robert ZAMORA, Defendant, and Anthony Ullibari, Witness-Appellant.

No. 82CA0560.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. III.

March 10, 1983.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1983.

*154J.D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Deputy Atty. Gen., Joel W. Cantrick, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., John Milton Hutchins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

John E. Popovich, Jr., Denver, for witness-appellant.

KELLY, Judge.

A one-year sentence for contempt was imposed on Anthony Ullibari for his refusal to testify in the prosecution of William Robert Zamora. Ullibari contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment. He further argues that the one-year sentence was impermissible because no opportunity for a jury trial was given. We affirm the finding of contempt, vacate the sentence and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing not in excess of six months.

Ullibari’s argument that the trial court’s findings were insufficient under C.R.C.P. 107(b) to support the judgment for contempt is without merit. The trial court’s specific findings that Ullibari’s refusal to testify constituted offensive conduct amounting to an obstruction of justice, and that this behavior was not excused by his fear of retribution from other penitentiary inmates, satisfied the requirements of C.R.C.P. 107(b). *See Board of Water Works*v. *Pueblo Water Works Employees Local 1045,*196 Colo. 308, 586 P.2d 18 (1978); *Lobb v. Hodges,*641 P.2d 310 (Colo.App.1982). However, confinement for contempt for longer than six months is constitutionally impermissible unless the person has been given the opportunity for a jury trial. *Bloom v. Illinois,*391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968); *see also Padilla*v. *Padilla,*645 P.2d 1327 (Colo.App.1982).

As the record is devoid of evidence that Ullibari waived a jury trial in this contempt action, *see Rice v. People,*193 Colo. 270, 565 P.2d 940 (1977), we conclude that the trial court was without authority to impose the one-year sentence.

Accordingly, the judgment finding Ulli-bari in contempt is affirmed. The sentence is vacated and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to resentence not in excess of six months.

VAN CISE and KIRSHBAUM, JJ., concur.
newtek-fifthsupplemental






  FIFTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE    between    NEWTEK BUSINESS SERVICES CORP.    and    U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,    as Trustee    Dated as of November 27, 2020  RECITALS OF THE COMPANY  





 






ARTICLE I  TERMS OF THE NOTES  Section 1.01. Terms of the Notes         





 






provided however     





 






    





 






        





 






                ARTICLE II  DEFINITIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF GENERAL APPLICATION  Section 2.01.  





 






Section 2.02.  Section 2.03.  





 






ARTICLE III  EXECUTION OF SECURITIES   Section 3.01.  ARTICLE IV  SATISFACTION AND DISCHARGE  Section 4.01.  ARTICLE V  TRUSTEE  Section 5.01.  





 






ARTICLE VI  COVENANTS  Section 6.01.  





 






 





 






ARTICLE VII  DEFEASANCE AND COVENANT DEFEASANCE  Section 7.01.  





 






ARTICLE VIII  MEETINGS OF HOLDERS OF SECURITIES  Section 8.01.  provided, however ARTICLE IX  MISCELLANEOUS  Section 9.01.  Section 9.02.  Section 9.03.  Section 9.04.  





 






Section 9.05.  Section 9.06.  Section 9.07.  Section 9.08.  





 






Signature page to Fifth Supplemental Indenture NEWTEK BUSINESS SERVICES  CORP.  U.S. BANK NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION 





 






Exhibit A – Form of Note  Newtek Business Services Corp.  





 






 





 






NEWTEK BUSINESS SERVICES  CORP.  





 






 





 






   Newtek Business Services Corp.  





 






 





 






 





 






Exhibit A – Form of Global Note  Newtek Business Services Corp.  





 






provided, further,  however   





 






NEWTEK BUSINESS SERVICES  CORP.  





 






 





 






Newtek Business Services Corp.
AERO CONTRACTORS, LTD. • Johnston County Airport • P.O.Box1139 • Smithfield.N.C.27577 (919) 934-0978 934·0979

Federal Aviation Administration Mr. Timothy Shaver Avionics BranchManager, Avionics BranchAFS-360 5thFloor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, DC 20024 Aero Contractors, Ltd. 3463 Swift Creek Road Smithfield, NC 27577 (919) 934-0978 (919) 934-1161 fax January 17, 2012

Aero Contractors, Ltd. is requesting a 24 month exemption from 14 CFRPart 125.225 and 125.226 to operate a Turbo DC-3 (N845S, SIN 25509) without a Digital Flight Data Recorder.
Petition for Relief:
Aero Contractors, Ltd. is requesting an exemption from 14 CFRPart 125.226 (b) (1) based uponthere is no Supplemental Type Certificate for a Digital Flight DataRecorder installationthat covers the 18 parameters required in 14 CFRPart 125.226 (a) (1) through (a) (18). Currentlythere is no Flight Data Recorder parameter collection onthe DC-3 aircraft based upon previous operations as a 14 CFRPart 91 aircraft. The requirements to operate 14 CFR Part 125.225 (a) has a requirement to collect 11 parameters, which is current operate with an exemptionuntil January 31, 2012. No reduction in operational functionality will be experienced during this period that the exemptionwill be in force for these aircraft. The aircraft will also have a fully equivalent level ofsafety to any other aircraft operating in FAR 125 inthe country. Thus, this exemption will not adversely affect safety. Supportive Information: Aero Contractors, Ltd. has been working with a manufacturer who produces DataImage Recorder System installations. The DataImage Recorder system is being reviewed as an equivalent means of compliance for the Digital Flight Data Recorder. Once the installation ofthe DataImage Recorder Turbo DC-3 exemption 14 CFRPart 125.226 Page 1System is complete, and giventhe aircraft's current configuration, this aircraft will pose no detrimental effect onNational Airspace System Safety. Aero Contractors, Ltd. is working withthe DataImage Recorder System Manufacturer as a member ofa beta group inproviding installation and operational data from the device. Description ofoperation under the proposed exemption: Aero Contractors, Ltd. will operate the aircraft under the rules and regulation of 14 CFR 125 as a passenger and cargo airplane with a 24 month exemption for the Digital Flight DataRecorder. Aero Contractors, Ltd. will continue to work withthe DataImage Recorder Manufacturer, FAA Avionics BranchAFS-360, and FAAFlight Standards District Office, EA-39 onthe approval process for the device as an equivalent means ofcompliance until suchtime as FAA Avionics Branch AFS-360 determines the DataImage Recorder acceptable.

# ~~ Freddy Pearce (fpearce@aerocontractors.com) Director ofMaintenance

Turbo DC-3 exemption 14 CFRPart 125 Page2
#### Terry Leonard SMITH, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, as Secretary, Department of Corrections, State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 4-86-2839.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 15, 1987.

Terry Leonard Smith, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Jr., Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Amy L. Diem, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

DELL, Judge.

Petitioner seeks belated appellate review of a judgment and sentence entered against him on July 7, 1986 for trafficking in cocaine. In his petition for writ of habe-as corpus he alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. This court ordered the appointment of a judge of the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit to conduct an evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s petition and to file a report and recommendation as to whether the petitioner should be granted a belated appeal. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court reported:

> 1. At the Sentencing, on July 7, 1986, the trial judge advised the Petitioner that he had thirty days in which to appeal the Judgment and Sentence of this court and that the Public Defender would be appointed to represent him in any appeals if he could not afford a private attorney.

> 2. A Notice of Appeal was not timely filed. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on November 23, 1986.

> 3. Petitioner’s attorney failed to file a timely Notice of Appeal and failed to have the Public Defender appointed as substitute counsel and did not obtain an order to withdraw as attorney. Petitioner, thus, has shown exceptional circumstances why a belated appeal should be allowed.

Based on the findings of the circuit court we grant petitioner’s petition for belated appellate review of the judgment of conviction and sentence. We grant this petition on the authority of *State v. Meyer,*430 So.2d 440 (Fla.1983). We remand this case to the trial court with instructions to determine the petitioner’s entitlement to the appointment of a public defender and, if he is entitled, to appoint a public defender to represent him in his appeal from the aforesaid judgment and sentence. Petitioner shall have thirty days from the rendition of *40the trial court’s order on the appointment of counsel to file his notice of appeal.

Petition for habeas corpus granted and case remanded to the trial court with instructions.

DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #13027 and #13028; Washington Disaster #WA-00036]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of  Washington (FEMA-4056-DR), dated 03/05/2012. *Incident:*
                         Severe Winter Storm, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides. *Incident Period:*
                         01/14/2012 through 01/23/2012. *Effective Date:*
                         03/05/2012. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         05/04/2012. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         12/05/2012.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on  03/05/2012, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Clallam, Grays Harbor, King, Klickitat, Lewis, Mason, Pierce, Skamania, Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
3.125Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000*For Economic Injury:*Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 13027B and for economic injury is 13028B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator  for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2012-6094 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTIANS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HITSGALORE.COM, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERNCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          18,729
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               239,660
<PP&E>                                          75,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                (46,035)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 484,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,395,567
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    109,764
<COMMON>                                         5,512
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,932,274)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   484,310
<SALES>                                        123,487
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               123,487
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,426,406
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (481,333)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             212,842
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,034,428)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   262,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (772,428)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 246,243
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                181,228
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (344,957)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luis Ortiz, Also Known as Jose Velez, Appellant. The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Pino, Appellant.

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered December 15, 1989, convicting defendants, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree, and sentencing defendant Pino to an indeterminate prison term of from three to nine years, and sentencing defendant Ortiz as a predicate felon to an indeterminate prison term of from five to ten years, unanimously affirmed.

Investigating suspicious activity on a fire escape leading to the 12th floor of 324 West 84th Street, police officers observed an open apartment window with its safety gate pushed in. Later, the officers arrested the defendants inside the ransacked apartment, which showed obvious signs of burglary. In addition, the police recovered a VCR remote control from Pino’s jacket pocket, and a wrist watch from Ortiz’s pants pocket. Pino testified that he and Ortiz were looking for a place to sleep when a black male came running out of the 12th floor apartment, leaving the door open. According to Pino, he and Ortiz went inside the apartment to make sure no one was hurt, and the police arrived as they were leaving.

*331We disapprove of the prosecutor’s closing arguments. However, these arguments are unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we declihe to reach them in the interest of justice. In any case, were we to consider these arguments, we would find them to constitute harmless error in view of the overwhelming evidence against defendants *(People v Crimmins,*38 NY2d 407).

Contrary to Ortiz’s unpreserved argument on appeal, the court’s preliminary instructions did not shift the burden of proof to defendants, nor- did the court’s final instructions evince bias against the defense. The court’s interruptions during defense counsel’s direct and cross examinations were necessary to facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial and to enforce the rules of evidence *(People v Arabadjis, 78*AD2d 614). In addition, we reject Ortiz’s argument that his counsel was ineffective for failing to make a pretrial motion to suppress evidence, for eliciting incriminating testimony, and because he failed to object to and request curative instructions with respect to the prosecutor’s improper summation *(Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668).

Pino’s argument that the court’s final instructions were erroneous because they did not convey that the crime of burglary is made out only if the intent to commit a crime exists contemporaneously with the intent to unlawfully remain is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any case, the argument, in the circumstances, is meritless.

Finally, there is no basis for reducing Pino’s sentence to the statutory minimum since the sentence imposed was not excessive in light of Pino’s lack of remorse and the property damage involved. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Kupferman, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**Notice of Inability to Obtain Consent from Arthur Andersen LLP**

 

Radiant Systems, Inc. and its subsidiaries have not received the consent of Arthur Andersen LLP to the incorporation by reference of itsreport on the financial statements and financial statement schedule of Radiant Systems, Inc. for the periods ended December 31, 2001 and 2000, into the following registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission under theSecurities Act of 1933: the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-102221) of Radiant Systems, Inc.; and the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-23237, 333-41327, 333-62157 and 333-71892) of Radiant Systems, Inc. 

 

Radiant Systems, Inc. has dispensed with the requirement to file Arthur Andersen LLP’sconsent in reliance upon Rule 437a of the Securities Act of 1933. Because Arthur Andersen LLP has not consented to the incorporation by reference of their report into Radiant’s registration statements under the Securities Act of 1933, you willnot be able to recover against Arthur Andersen LLP under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the financial statements or financial statement schedule audited by Arthur Andersen LLP orany omissions to state a material fact required to be stated therein.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2267 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2267

    To suspend temporarily the duty on multi interconnection board.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on multi interconnection board.

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

SECTION 1. MULTI INTERCONNECTION BOARD.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Other electrical    Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        apparatus; Multi                                                   31/2011.......
                        interconnection
                        printed board
                        using single
                        layer, high
                        density 15kV
                        insulated copper
                        wires controlling
                        impedance (Zo) up
                        to +/-5%, having
                        pattern width +/-
                        0.003 mm and
                        current capacity
                        of 5A (provided
                        for in subheading
                        8536.90.80)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

DEBBIE GADASH, Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretar y of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

2011-7103

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Case No. 09-0331, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

K ENNETH M. C ARPENTER , Carpenter, Chartered, of Topeka, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant.

D AWN E. G OODMAN , Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department ofJustice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondentappellee. With her on the brief were T ONY W EST , Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Director, and F RANKLIN E. W HITE , J R ., Assistant Director.Of counsel on the brief were D AVID J. B ARRANS , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and T RACEY P. W ARREN , Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.

_____________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN , R EYNA , and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges ). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 13, 2012 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly Clerk