alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bernard Fein et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Thompson-Starrett Co., Inc., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

October 7, 1959.

*986*Charles Trynin*for defendant.

*Buchman <& Buchman*for plaintiffs.

Charles A. Loreto, J.

Motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendant claims that the four causes of action are insufficient in law. Its argument is based on the claim that the instrument involved is a negotiable promissory note and as presentment and demand for payment have not been made, no right to convert into stock has accrued under the terms of the instrument in favor of the plaintiffs.

The court disagrees with this contention. Although the instrument in its first paragraph bears all the indicia of a negotiable promissory note (Negotiable Instruments Law, § 20) it is stripped of an essential element requisite of a negotiable instrument by the second paragraph which reads, “ This note and the indebtedness hereby are and shall continue to be subordinate and subject in right of payment to the prior payment in full of any and all indebtedness of the maker hereof to the Bankers Trust Company * * * and the National Boulevard Bank * * * whether now existing or hereafter

existing.” By reason of this paragraph the obligation to pay can be diminished or extinguished and the requirements of section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, that a negotiable instrument contain an unconditional promise to pay does not exist. *National Bank of Watervliet*v. *Martin*(203 App. Div. 390, affd. 235 N. Y. 611) cited by defendant is not in point. The instrument in that case is not conditional for it expressly obligates the maker to pay the minimum sum of $250 of the principal on the due date or any renewal thereof, if exercised by the maker.

The court therefore concludes that the writing upon which this suit is brought is not a negotiable instrument but a contract with various provisions, including one relating to the right to convert the principal into stock of the defendant corporation. *987Absent any prohibition against assignment, the agreement is assignable in whole or in part *(Rosenthal Paper Co.*v. *National Folding Box & Paper Co.,*226 N. Y. 313), including the right to convert into stock. The reference to the words “ holder hereof ” in the instrument does not prevent an assignment. Considered in its entirety, the court interprets the words “ holder hereof ” to denote the owner or owners thereof.

The motion is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP COMPANY FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 27, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                              3,880
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      90,555
<ALLOWANCES>                        2,769
<INVENTORY>                        78,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  172,855
<PP&E>                            118,644
<DEPRECIATION>                     40,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    308,945
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             112,724
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                              133
<OTHER-SE>                        137,816
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      308,945
<SALES>                         1,331,002
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                1,331,002
<CGS>                           1,159,593
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,305,937
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      111
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      451
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  2,978
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    22,198
<INCOME-TAX>                        8,298
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                13,900
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       13,900
<EPS-BASIC>                        1.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                        1.04


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7322

RAY THOMAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR

THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.

(CA-03-413-MJG)

Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ray Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ray Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254

proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). 

By failing to assert on appeal any of the claims that were

raised and rejected by the district court, Thomas has failed to

demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and has waived his right to

challenge the district court’s denial of § 2254 relief. 4th Cir.

R. 34(b). Moreover, we decline to address the issues Thomas raises

for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d

246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised for the first

time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional

circumstances). 
- 3 -

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 before the 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
Combined Financial Statements at June 30, 1997 for the year ended June 30, 1997
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>               0000909122
<NAME>              EAST PEORIA REAL ESTATE
<MULTIPLIER>        1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,414
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                        89
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,377
<PP&E>                                          24,899
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,136
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,457
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            65
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,288
<SALES>                                         22,197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,774
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,374
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,553
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,847
<INCOME-TAX>                                       245
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,602
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

JULY 21, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b).

1. Case No. SD33521

Re: BILLIEJO CHRISTY,

Claimant-Appellant,

vs. MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY,

Employer-Respondent.
# C_2013313EN.01003501.xml

| 26.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/35

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2013 — Gheysens v Council

(Case F-83/08) (1)

1

(Civil service - Auxiliary member of the contract staff - Conditions of engagement - Function group - Types of duties and corresponding function groups - Duration of employment)

2013/C 313/65

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Johan Gheysens (Malines, Belgium) (represented initially by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, and subsequently by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, and subsequently by M. Bauer and J. Herrmann, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Council fixing the conditions of the applicant’s engagement in so far as it limits the duration of the contract to two years and classifies him in function group III, grade 11, step 1 and a declaration that Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants is illegal in so far as it authorises successive contracts for a fixed period subject to an overall limit of three years.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union to recruit Mr Gheysens in so far as it classifies him in function group III; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union to recruit Mr Gheysens in so far as it classifies him in function group III;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Mr Gheysens; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs incurred by Mr Gheysens;

| 4. | Orders Mr Gheysens to bear one quarter of his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Mr Gheysens to bear one quarter of his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 06.12.2008, p. 59.

1

---
# C_2008008EN.01002401.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/24

---

Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Aer Lingus Group v Commission

(Case T-411/07)

(2008/C 8/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aer Lingus Group plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Burnside, Solicitor, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyer, T. Snels, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision adopted by the European Commission on 11 October 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision adopted by the European Commission on 11 October 2007;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4600 of 11 October 2007 by which the Commission rejected the applicant's request to initiate proceedings under Article 8(4) and to adopt interim measures under Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’), following Commission Decision C(2007) 3104 of 27 June 2007 (‘the Prohibition Decision’) declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.4439 — Ryanair — Aer Lingus).

The applicant submits that the Commission has both misconstrued and misapplied Articles 8(4) and 8(5) of the EC Merger Regulation by stating that it did not have the power to require Ryanair, following the Prohibition Decision, to divest its minority stake in Aer Lingus, or to take other measures to restore the status quo ante, or to take interim measures in the meantime.

The applicant claims in particular that, since the Commission explicitly treated this minority stake and Ryanair's associated public offer for Aer Lingus as forming integral parts of the same single concentration, it follows that the prohibited concentration has been partially implemented. Moreover, the applicant contends that Articles 8(4) and 8(5) of the EC Merger Regulation empower the Commission in these circumstances to act to address the adverse effects on competition arising from this minority shareholding linking two companies which have been held to be each other's closest competitors on air transport routes to and from Ireland.

The applicant further claims that the Commission has acted in breach of Article 21(3) of the EC Merger Regulation by failing to assert its exclusive jurisdiction and instead leaving open the possibility on intervention by Member States.

---
#### Marcus Fischer, Appellant, *v.*Walter I. Shugg, Jr., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 4, 1959.

*Fried, Beck, Tannebaum & Field (Abbie Goldstein*of counsel), for appellant.

*Levine, Spitz & Melloni (Philip Sherman*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Service of the notice of motion on attorneys who had no authority to appear for the landlord was not service upon the latter. Accordingly, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion (cf. *Bittson*v. *Bittson,*3 A D 2d 847).

The order dated March 23, 1959 should be reversed, with $10 costs, and final order reinstated, without prejudice to renewal of tenant’s motion to vacate final order upon proper notice to landlord.

Concur — Hoestadter, J. P., Hecht and Aurelio, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.
# Local Development Districts - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Atlanta Regional Commission Executive Director Anna Roach Email &#x69;n&#x66;o&#x63;&#101;&#x6e;&#116;e&#x72;&#64;&#x61;&#116;&#x6c;&#97;&#x6e;&#116;a&#x72;e&#x67;&#105;&#x6f;&#110;&#x61;&#x6c;&#46;&#x6f;r&#x67;The post Atlanta Regional Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Barren River Area Development District Executive Director Eric Sexton Email &#x65;&#114;i&#x63;&#46;s&#x65;&#120;t&#x6f;&#110;&#64;&#x62;&#114;a&#x64;&#100;&#46;&#x6f;&#114;gThe post Barren River Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Big Sandy Area Development District Executive Director Eric Ratliff Email &#x65;&#x72;&#105;c&#x2e;&#x72;&#x61;&#116;l&#x69;&#x66;&#x66;&#64;B&#x69;&#x67;&#x53;&#97;n&#x64;&#x79;&#x2e;&#111;r&#x67;The post Big Sandy Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Bluegrass Area Development District Executive Director David Duttlinger Email dduttl&#105;&#110;&#103;&#101;&#114;&#64;&#98;&#x67;&#x61;&#x64;&#x64;&#x2e;&#x6f;&#x72;&#x67;The post Bluegrass Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Buckeye Hills Regional Council Executive Director Chasity Schmelzenbach Email c&#115;&#104;&#x6d;&#x65;&#x6c;&#x7a;e&#110;&#98;&#97;&#x63;&#x68;&#x40;bu&#99;&#107;&#x65;&#x79;&#x65;hi&#108;&#108;&#x73;&#x2e;&#x6f;rgThe post Buckeye Hills Regional Council appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Buffalo Trace Area Development District Executive Director Amy Kennedy Email &#97;&#x6b;&#x65;n&#110;&#x65;d&#121;&#x40;b&#116;&#x61;d&#100;&#x2e;&#x63;&#111;&#x6d;The post Buffalo Trace Area Development District appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Catawba Regional Council of Governments Catawba Regional Council of Governments Address 215 Hampton Street, Suite 200Rock Hill, SC 29730 Executive Director Randy Imler Email &#99;&#x72;&#x63;o&#103;&#x40;&#x63;a&#116;&#x61;w&#98;&#x61;&#x63;o&#103;&#x2e;o&#114;&#x67;The post Catawba Regional Council of Governments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Central Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission Executive Director Greg Clark Email &#103;&#x63;l&#97;&#x72;k&#64;&#x63;a&#114;&#x70;d&#99;&#x2e;&#99;&#x6f;&#x6d;The post Central Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission Executive Director Bonnie Riedesel Email &#99;&#x73;&#112;&#x64;&#99;&#x40;&#99;&#x73;&#112;&#x64;&#99;&#x2e;&#111;&#x72;&#103;The post Central Shenandoah Planning District Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission Executive Director Scotty Wampler Email &#x73;&#119;&#x61;&#x6d;p&#x6c;&#101;r&#x40;&#99;p&#x70;&#100;&#x63;&#x2e;o&#x72;&#103;The post Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Aetrium Incorporated (“the Company”) on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Joseph C.
Levesque, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, Douglas L. Hemer, as Chief
Administrative Officer of the Company, and Paul H. Askegaard, as Treasurer of
the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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




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







Date:  March
      31, 2008
            
            By:       /s/ Joseph C. LevesqueName: Joseph
      C. Levesque
              Title:   Chairman
      of the Board, President and
              Chief Executive
      Officer





Date:
      March 31, 2008
            
            By:       /s/ Douglas L. HemerName:
      Douglas L. Hemer
              Title:    Chief
      Administrative Officer





Date:
      March 31, 2008
            
            By:      /s/ Paul H. AskegaardName:
      Paul H. Askegaard
              Title:  
      Treasurer (principal financial and accounting
  officer)
Independent Auditors' Consent
                          -----------------------------

The  Board  of  Directors
Summit  Financial  Corporation

We  consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8  (No.  33-83538,  33-94962, and 33-94964) of Summit Financial Corporation of
our  report  dated January 19, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of  Summit Financial Corporation and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December
31,  2000  and  1999,  and  the  related  consolidated  statements  of  income,
shareholders'  equity  and  comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the
years  in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report appears in
the  December  31,  2000  Annual  Report  on  Form  10-K  of  the  Company.


                                                /s/ KPMG LLP

Greenville,  South  Carolina
March  26,  2001
# C_2007235EN.01001401.xml

| 6.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 235/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/14

---

Action brought on 20 July 2007 — Secure Computing v OHIM — Investronica (SECUREOS)

(Case T-277/07)

(2007/C 235/25)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Secure Computing Corporation (Minnesota, United States) (represented by: H. P. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Investronica, SA

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 in Case R 1063/2006-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 in Case R 1063/2006-1;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SECUREOS’ for goods in Class 9 (Application No 2 659 944).

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Investronica, S.A.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘SECUREURO’ (Community trade mark No 2 126 290) for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 35, 36, 37 and 42 and the figurative mark ‘secureuro’ (Community trade mark No 2 418 135) for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 35 and 36.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Grant of the opposition and rejection of the application.

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1), Article 73 and Article 74(1), in fine, of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

Pleas in law:

in fine

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    BILL PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

  Karen L. Haas, Clerk of the House, reported that on July 27, 2012, 
she presented to the President of the United States, for his approval, 
the following bill.

       H.R. 5872. To require the President to provide a report 
     detailing the sequester required by the Budget Control Act of 
     2011 on January 2, 2013.

                          ____________________
```