alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Madolyn K. Singer, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County,

January 16, 1959.

*658
      *Bills *& Scheiber*for petitioner.

*Harry P. Bray*for claimant.

John J. Dillox,

S. An independent proceeding has been brought by the executrix to determine the validity of the claim of Ada V. Kremer, a sister of the decedent, in the sum of $6,200 for services rendered to the decedent, pursuant to an agreement, as practical nurse and housekeeper at the rate of $5 per day from February 4, 1953, to July 12, 1957. The claimant sets forth in her claim that the total value of said services was $8,200 of which $2,000 has been paid, leaving a balance due of $6,200.

The court was favorably impressed with the testimony of Henry C. Frey, a member of the Bar for almost 53 years, and a disinterested witness. His uncontroverted testimony established that the claimant gave up a position in February of 1953 to be with the decedent; that the decedent told him that her sister Ada had agreed to remain with her permanently and to perform housekeeping and nursing services on behalf of the decedent at $5 per day; that he knew the decedent for 55 years; that the claimant was with the decedent each time the witness saw her, including trips to Florida; that various housekeeping and nursing services were performed; that decedent paid the claimant the sum of $2,000 on account, and that decedent was under the care of a physician requiring the constant assistance and companionship of the claimant. It was stipulated by counsel that if Dr. Fitch, decedent’s attending physician, were to testify, he would have stated that he entrusted to the claimant the giving of medication to the decedent.

While the court is not unmindful of the careful scrutiny to be performed by the court as to claims of the type herein under consideration, and of the- quantum of the proof necessary to sustain such a claim, the court finds upon the evidence adduced that the claimant is entitled to recover the sum of $6,200.

The attorney for the executrix raises the defense that the claimant should not be permitted to recover for services as a practical nurse for the reason that she was not so licensed as required by the Education Law. It is the opinion of this court that the claimant was not hired on the basis of being a practical nurse as defined by the Education Law. She was needed as a constant companion to the decedent and to render *659whatever services were necessary. Whatever services could be classified as nursing were incidental to all other services she rendered. Also the court further believes the factual situation herein presented comes within one of the exemptions set forth in section 6909 of the Education Law, thus rendering it unnecessary for this claimant to be licensed in order to collect the money she claims to be due.

Settle order.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 28, 2015

d0518 

# Order

Clerk May 28, 2015

149646(89)(91)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149646

COA: 312649

Wayne CC: 12

- 003370

- FC

CHARLES HOLIDAY MALONE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to strike is DENIED. The motion for

reconsideration of this Court’s October 28, 2014 order is considered, and it is DENIED,

because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.
**EXHIBIT 31.2****Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.**I, Richard S. Kay, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Xenonics Holdings, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated 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 disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the smallbusiness issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date:  August 13, 2007              /s/ Richard S. Kay   Name:  Richard S. Kay   Title:  Chief Financial Officer
#### QUINN-L CORPORATION v. Thomas R. ELKINS, et al.

No. 88-C-0012.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

Writ Application Dismissed April 22, 1988.

In re Elkins, Thomas R.; Quinn-L Baton Rouge Prtn. Condo; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86 0500; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 264298.

Prior report: La.App., 519 So.2d 1164.

Granted.

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS WRIT APPLICATION AND APPEAL

Considering the foregoing motion, the writ application of Quinn-L Corporation is dismissed, with prejudice, at Quinn-L Corporation's cost.
p. 1


# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 45 ) ll-K-(B)-3 3 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:49 AM Sheet 45of 325P. 2 

# /fl \ „ P. ?n\ D 

## (0)fOJ ^ II-K-(B)-3 3

SUPPOR T T O TH E INDUSTRIAL BOILE RNSP S ACTIVIT Y- IFCA M COMPUTE RMODEL .
Lette r fro

m J.D . Mobley , EPArlER L t o D.B . Hensche l & W.J . Rhodes , EPArlERL . Apri l 10 , 1980 .
THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-3 3
Attachment B

Attachment B-1: Combined SIP Completeness Checklist

Attachment B-2: Materials Pertaining to 

2009 Regulatory Action, Second Tier

(Includes documents previously submitted 1/28/2011)

Attachment B-3: Materials Pertaining to 

2010 Regulatory Action

Attachment B-4: Materials Pertaining to 

2012 Regulatory Action
Attachment B-1: Combined SIP Completeness Checklist
P.1 

OAR Box 1147 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

130) IV-E-3 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:54 PM Sheet 130 of 242 
^

t0$r % 

%«**? 

P.2 

\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

\ ^\@-J ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

4* mfTa 

SEP I I !987 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Telephone conversation with Husky 

Regarding In-Use Dispensing Rate Limit 

Corporation 

FROM: 

TO: 

THRU: 

Kathleen A. Steilen, Chemical Engineer ^cctA/k^ 0.. JfejdLisv^ 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

The Record 

Glenn W. Passavant, Senior Project Manager JjLb*^^('-u<*

/

**J\ 

Standards Development and Sflppoi Branch 

Chester J. France, Chief M 

Standards Development aiyoi Sup 

On August 20, 1987, I participated in a telephone 

conversation with Grenville Sutcliffe, President of Husky 

Corporation, regarding in-use dispensing rate limits. He had 

reviewed EPA's technical report, "Investigation of the Need for 

In-use Dispensing Rate Limits and Fuel Nozzle Geometry 

Standardization" and had a few comments. First, he wanted to 

clarify that Husky Corporation is the largest fuel nozzle 

manufacturer when considering both new and rebuilt nozzles. 

Second, he expressed a strong support for the ISO nozzle 

geometry standards which were discussed in the report. 

Finally, he informed me that Husky fuel nozzles currently have 

a flow regulator incorporated in the nozzle design to limit the 

in-use dispensing rate to 10 gpm. This flow regulator 

decreases premature shut-offs and fuel spitback from the 

nozzle. in addition, he said he would send me a videotape 

which discusses flow regulators in fuel nozzles and the effects 

they have on spray patterns and potential spillage from 

nozzles. He said that Husky Corporation could supply a copy of 

this videotape to the onboard docket. (On August 31, 1987, I 

called Husky Corporation to ask that they send a copy of this 

videotape to the docket with a cover letter highlighting its 

major points.) Furthermore, Mr. Sutcliffe said that Husky 

would be sending a memorandum addressing these and other 

related comments regarding EPA's onboard refueling control 

proposal to the docket. 

cc: Docket A-87-11
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Universal Travel Group (the
"Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 9, 2006                            /s/ Xin Zhang
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Xin Zhang
                                                   Chief Financial Officer

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.
Exhibit 10.5








Loan Contract


Party A (borrower): Shandong Changqing Paper Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Party A)





Party B (lender): Shandong Spring Medicine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Party B)





By virtue of equality, voluntary and consensus, Party A and Party B reached the following agreement on the loan of money and will conclude the following contract.


(1) Party B will lend RMB (capital) SIX MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND ONLY to Party A and will hand over to Party A before 27 October 2008.


(2) Loan term: one year.


(3) Payment due date: before 27 October 2009.


(4) Liability of breach of contract: If Party A fails to repay the loan at the stipulated time, Party B shall charge 1% interest based on the remaining balance.


(5) Settlement of disputes: Any dispute shall be settled through friendly negotiation. In case no settlement is reached, this dispute shall be settled in the people’s court where Party B is located.


The contract shall become effective as of the date when it is signed by the Parties. This contract is made in two copies. Each Party keeps one and shall have the equal legal effect.





Party A (seal):
Party B (seal):


Chief (signature):
Chief (signature):


Date of signing the contract: 20 October 2008








Seal of Shandong Changqing Paper Co., Ltd.








Seal of Shandong Spring Medicine Co., Ltd.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
STATEMENTS OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES; STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000846581
<NAME> THE PRUDENTIAL VARIABLE CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      13,972,669
<SECURITIES>                                 2,797,008
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   179,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           225,142,653
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             225,142,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,919,713
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 210,222,940
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               225,142,653
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            24,835,049
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,555,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,062,543
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,062,543
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,062,543
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
50040.

#### ZIPPO MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. EDWARDS.

Quillian, Judge.

The appellant corporation filed a plea to the jurisdiction contending that it did not have an agent and place of business in Georgia. After a trial before the trial judge he denied the plea. An appeal was filed and the case is here for review. *Held:*

Service was perfected upon the appellant corporation by serving Ralph Edwards as an agent of the appellant. There was evidence that Edwards takes orders and sends them to the appellant who ships the goods and bills the purchaser direct; Edwards uses his home as his office; the appellant furnishes Edwards with business stationery which shows Edwards as "District Manager” and his phone number and address on the letterhead; the appellant also sends a publication to its customers which lists Edwards as "District Manager for Atlanta, Georgia”; *316the appellant has the authority to terminate Edwards’ employment if he did not perform to the appellant’s satisfaction. This together with other evidence was sufficient to support the trial judge’s denial of the plea to the jurisdiction.

Submitted January 9, 1975

Decided February 26, 1975

Rehearing denied March 18, 1975

*Claude E. Hambrick,*for appellant.

*John R. Grimes,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pannell, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.*
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7493

LUCOLIA MAYFIELD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv - 00691

- JAG )

Submitted : March 24, 2022 Decided: March 28, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lucolia Mayfield see ks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability w ill not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mayfield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT FORM ON 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS 
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          16,577
<SECURITIES>                                 1,085,514
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,576
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,203,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        854,436
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           309
<OTHER-SE>                                     285,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,203,303
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,888
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,183
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   318
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,853
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,534
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,534
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,534
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Waste Systems Intenational, Inc.)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000847468
<NAME>                                         Waste Systems International, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         2,964,274
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  944,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                   45,833
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,275,159
<PP&E>                                         13,505,472
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,018,289
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,560,254
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,742,763
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    13,306,557
<COMMON>                                       38,934
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,560,254
<SALES>                                        3,457,692
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,457,692
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,905,826
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,271,314
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,354,614
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,454,054)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   5,622
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,459,676)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (133,907)
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,588,612)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.55)