alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Application of Helen Goldberg and Isaac Goldberg for the Discharge of Record of a Mortgage on 902 Driggs Avenue, County of Kings, Brooklyn.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

January 9, 1959.

*Morris I. Gold*for petitioners.

James S. Brown, Jr., J.

Application under section 322 of the Real Property Law, initiated by order to show cause, to cancel a mortgage without production of the original mortgage. The order provides for notice to the mortgagee by publication in a newspaper. In the instant situation the applicants could not proceed under section 340 of the Real Property Law (ancient mortgage) because they do not meet the requirements of said section. Normal procedure would then dictate that applicants proceed under subdivision 4 of section 500 of the Real Property Law.

Section 322 of the Real Property Law provides that: *“*Eight days’ personal notice of the application for such order shall he given to the then present owner of the real estate, the mortgagee, or his or their personal representatives, heirs, sue*243cessors or assigns as the case may require, and to the party sought to be charged with the expenses of the proceeding, except that where any of the parties upon whom service is herein required to be made cannot with due diligence be personally served, the court to which the petition is presented may direct such mode of service as may appear proper. ’ ’ Applicants attempt to proceed pursuant to this section on the theory that publication is a “ mode of service” which said section authorizes the court to direct. However, it would not appear that *“*mode of service ” encompasses such constructive notice as would follow insertion of the order in a newspaper. “ Mode of service ’ ’ must be construed to mean some method by which actual notice would be given to the mortgagee. The statement that applicants cannot locate the mortgagee and do not know whether said mortgagee is alive or dead bars them from proceeding under section 340 of the Beal Property Law (ancient mortgage) and relegates them to an action under subdivision 4 of section 500 of the Beal Property Law which contemplates and applies to this situation and was specifically enacted for that purpose. If the scope of sections 322 and 340 of the Beal Property Law is to be enlarged, such remedial power lies with the Legislature.

Section 342 of the Beal Property Law provides that the order to show cause in a proceeding initiated under section 340 may be served by publication. If the Legislature had intended to extend such method of service to an application under section 322 of the Beal Property Law it would have so provided. .It follows, therefore, that the instant application must be denied.

Subsequent to this application, there was submitted evidence of the death of the mortgagee. With this additional evidence it would appear that now an application might lie to cancel this mortgage in accordance with the provisions of section 340 of the Beal Property Law and applicants are given leave so to proceed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
ONBANCorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos.
33-22113, 33-30813, 33-49504, 33-49506, and 33-49508 on Form S-8 of
ONBANCorp, Inc. of our report dated January 22, 1997, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of ONBANCorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated statements of
income, changes in shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which report has been
incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K
of ONBANCorp, Inc.

/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
-------------------------
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Syracuse, New York
March 26, 1997


                                      30
---

---

Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned hereby certifies that
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Israel Growth Partners Acquisition Corp. (the
Registrant) for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the Registrant.

|Dated: December 15, 2008 |  | /s/ Carmel Vernia
Carmel Vernia Chief Executive Officer
|------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANIEL RILEY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 502 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Unpublished

Memorandum and Order of the Superior Court at No. 1818 EDA 2020 entered on October 20, 2021, affirming the PCRA Order of the Philadelphia County Court of

Common Pleas at No. CP

- 51

- CR

0006088

- 2012 entered on August
28, 2020

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19 th day of April , 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED . The judgment of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is

REMANDED for reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Bradley , 261 A.3d 381 (Pa.

2021).
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In
connection with the Annual Report of Presstek, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the for the period ended December 29, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Jacobson,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


April
      30, 2008
            /s/ Jeffrey JacobsonJeffrey
      Jacobson
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Presstek, Inc. and will be retained by Presstek, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Exhibit 10.18.2

                             NAPTAU GOLD CORPORATION

         5391 Blundell Road, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada, V7C 1H3

          TEL: 604-277-5252                         FAX: 604-277-5282

July 28, 1999

ADDENDUM TO LETTER OF INTENT SIGNED JULY 6, 1999

BETWEEN:

         CYBER CENTERS.COM, INC.    AND     NAPTAU GOLD CORPORATION

         8501 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 150     5391 Blundell Road

         Beverly Hills, CA  90211           Richmond, B.C., V7C 1H3

IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED that time is of the essence and the "closing date"
is hereby extended to be "no later than August 31, 1999.

Acknowledged and agreed to this 27th day of July, 1999.

CYBER CENTERS.COM, INC.                        NAPTAU GOLD CORPORATION

/s/ John Veyette                               /s/ E. D. Renyk
---------------------------                    --------------------------------

per John Veyette, President                    per E. D. Renyk, C.A., President
#### STATE of Louisiana v. William D. LEBLANC.

No. 87 KA 0106.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

May 27, 1987.

Donald T. Carmouche, Dist. Atty., Don-aldsonville, for plaintiff State of La., appel-lee.

Anatole J. Plaisance, Baton Rouge, for defendant William D. LeBlanc, appellant.

Before LOTTINGER, SHORTESS and CARTER, JJ.

CARTER, Judge.

A show cause was issued in this matter pursuant to the State of Louisiana’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The state contends that the case is not appealable.

Defendant was charged by separate bills of information with first offense DWI and speeding. *See*LSA-R.S. 14:98 and 32:61. The maximum aggregate penalty for violation of these offenses exceeds six months in jail and/or a $500 fine. *See*LSA-R.S. 14:98 B and LSA-R.S. 32:57 A. Since the charges were brought by separate bills of information, LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 493.1, which would limit the possible penalty to six months imprisonment and/or a $500 fine, is not applicable. *See State v. Odell,*458 So.2d 1304, 1307 fn. 6 (La.1984). Therefore, this matter was triable by a jury and thus appealable. *See*LSA-Const. Art. I, § 19, and Art. V, § 10(A); LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 779.

For the above stated reasons, the motion to dismiss is denied.

MOTION DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                    1,283,135
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             1,052,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                               4,697,928
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          7,308,230
<PP&E>                                   17,574,010
<DEPRECIATION>                            6,303,179
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           18,660,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     3,992,200
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                 10,294,458
<OTHER-SE>                                4,331,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             18,660,284
<SALES>                                  13,046,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         13,046,265
<CGS>                                     8,812,173
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             8,812,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          3,989,921
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          266,504
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (22,333)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (36,087)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          13,754
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                     1,743
<NET-INCOME>                                 15,497
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.37


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.17


 


AMENDMENT ONE


  


This AMENDMENT ONE (this “Amendment”)dated
November 10, 2020 (the “Effective Date”) to the Collaborative
Agreement dated May 27th, 2017 (as amended hereby, the “Agreement”) by and between American BriVision
(Holding) Corporation., a company incorporated under the laws of USA and having its principal place of business at 44370 Old
Warm Springs Blvd., Fremont, CA 94538, U.S.A. (“ABVC”) and Rgene Corporation, a Taiwan Corporation with
its principal place of business at SF., No. 148 , Songjiang Rd., Zhongshan Dist., Taipei City 104, Taiwan (R.O.C.) (“Rgene”).
ABVC and Rgene are thereafter referred to as the “Parties”.


 


WHEREAS, the
Parties desire to amend the Agreement;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Parties, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


 1. Amendment to the Agreement:




 


 Product:


 


1. 
New Drug of “ABV-1507 HER2/neu Positive Breast Cancer Combination Therapy”


 


And


 


3. New Drug of “ABV-1527
Ovary Cancer Combination Therapy”


 


Change to:


 


Product:


 


New Drug: “ABV-1519
EGFR Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Combination Therapy”


 


And


 


New Drug: “ABV-1526
Large Intestine/ Colon/ Rectal Cancer Combination Therapy”








 


2. Effectiveness of Agreement. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the provisions of the Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.


 


3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered
shall be deemed an original, but all of which counterparts together shall constitute but one and the same instrument. This Amendment
shall become effective on the Effective Date. Delivery of an executed counterpart of a
signature page to this Agreement, any amendments, waivers, consents or supplements, by facsimile or other electronic transmission
(including a .pdf copy sent by e-mail) shall be deemed to constitute an original and fully effective signature of such party.


 






     


     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed, in duplicate, each Party
taking a copy, as of the date first written above.


  





	AMERICAN BRIVISION CORPORATION	 	RGENE CORPORATION
	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ HOWARD DOONG	 	By:	/s/ U-KUEI SHEN
		HOWARD DOONG, M.D., Ph. D.	 	 	YU-KUEI SHEN.
		CEO	 	 	CHAIRMAN
	DATE:	 	DATE:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF JPS TEXTILE GROUP, INC. CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE
ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-02-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                                           1,460
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,677
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,511
<INVENTORY>                                     48,374
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,967
<PP&E>                                         241,646
<DEPRECIATION>                                 117,642
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 335,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          384,833
<BONDS>                                          4,226
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           32,676
<PREFERRED>                                        250
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                    (109,246)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   335,927
<SALES>                                        448,824
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               448,824
<CGS>                                          397,804
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  397,804
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              40,510
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (66,236)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (300)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (65,936)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (1,500)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (67,436)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (71.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (71.94)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
        32**
 
 Certification
        of Principal Executive and Financial Officer
 Pursuant
        to
 Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)
  In
        connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
        March
        31, 2006 (the “Report”) of Highbury Financial Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned
        hereby certify that, to the best of the undersigneds’ knowledge:
  (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 for the
        period certified.
  Date:
                  May 12, 2006
              
              By:
              
              /s/
                  Richard S. Foote**Richard
                  S. Foote****President
                  and Chief Executive Officer****(Principal
                  Executive Officer)**By:
              
              /s/
                  R. Bradley Forth**R.
                  Bradley Forth****Executive
                  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
                  Secretary****(Principal
                  Financial 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 of Atlas America Public #14-2005 (A) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and


(2)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            August
      12, 2008
#### CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Trustee of the Edward Wisner Donation v. Louis CHERAMIE and Rickey Cheramie.

No. 87-C-1533.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re New Orleans, City of; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86 0368; Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 54267.

Prior report: La.App., 509 So.2d 58.

Denied.

MARCUS, J., would grant the writ.
Motion Granted and Order filed February 20, 2014
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 14
- 00126
- CV

____________ IN RE JULIE HANNAH , Relator

O RIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 125th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013
- 48071



### ORDER On February 11, 2014, relator Julie Hannah filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this C ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52

. Relator asks this C ourt to compel the Honorable Kyle Carter , presiding judge of the 125th District Court of Harris County , to set aside his order s dated January 14, 2014 entered in trial court cause number 2013

- 48071, styled Julie Hannah v. David Lee Hatc her, et al . Relator claims respondent abused his2

discretion by ordering the underlying proceeding transferred to the County Court at Law of Aransas County

. Relator also has filed a motion for a temporary stay of the underlying proceedings. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On February 11 , 2014, relator asked this Court to stay proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the petition for writ of mandamus. Relator represents that her motion for a temporary stay is unopposed by the real parties in i nterest. It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relator’s request for relief requires further consideration , and that judicial economy will best be served by a grant of temporary relief

. We therefore GRANT relator’s motion and issue the following order:
We ORDER all proceedings in trial court cause number 2013

- 48071 , Julie Hannah v. David Lee Hatcher, Robert Alan Hatcher, and Marjorie Cordes , STAYED until a final decision by this C ourt on relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this C ourt. This Court’s order precludes any enforcement of the trial court’s January 14, 2014 orders transferring the underlying proceeding to the County Court at Law of Aransas County, until such time as this Court’s order is l ifted or modified. In addition, the C ourt requests Marjorie Cordes and David Lee Hatcher , the real part ies in interest, to file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before March 7 , 2014
. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.4

.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Donovan.
Mr.  Nick Parsons

Environmental  Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

OAR/OAQPS/SPPD/CCGEPA  Denver (Region 8)  

In  Re Docket ID:  EPA-HQ-Oq-2010-0505 

Dear Mr. Parsons:

One of our primary concerns is the air pollution in Utah.  As you may already be aware, the majority of 

Utah’s population lives in a very urbanized area covering several counties, all of which have cities that 

consistently rank in the top ten worst in the country for acute spikes in air pollution, especially 

particulate matter.  This past winter has been typical of the air pollution we experience.   The 

urbanized counties of Utah have had the highest levels of PM2.5 in the country on several days, 

including one day where the PM2.5 levels reached a value of 123ug/m3

 – exceeding EPA’s 35 ug/m3

standard by 3.5 times!

There is no question that the rapid oil and gas development in the Colorado Plateau is having a 

significant detrimental impact on regional air quality.  

The geography of Utah makes it ideally suited to be provided with all of its electrical needs from wind 

and solar power, and even to be a significant exporter of clean energy.  Why not undertake to make 

Utah the greenest state in the nation, and show the rest of the nation how easily this goal can be 

accomplished?

Tighter oil and gas regulations for the Colorado Plateau (which we support) will likely have a negative 

economic impact, so it is essential to offer significant Federal economic incentives for green energy 

production in Utah to offset this impact.

Federal economic incentives for clean energy production would solve multiple problems and make 

your job much easier in the long run. They would:

• Create more jobs

• Create clean energy infrastructure

• Create cleaner air

-Scot & Susan Morgan

Re Docket ID: EPA-HQ-Oq-2010-0505

Scot Morgan 

to: 

Nick Parsons 

08/03/2010 01:30 AM 

Show Details 

Re Docket ID: EPA-HQ-Oq-2010-0505 Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web6526.h... 8/9/2010
4008 Ralph Street

Salt Lake City, Utah 84124

801-272-1647.

Re Docket ID: EPA-HQ-Oq-2010-0505 Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\nparsons\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web6526.h... 8/9/2010