alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bernard L. Schubert, Plaintiff, *v.*Eleanor H. Bowman, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

September 23, 1957.

*112
      *Griffing, Smith, Tasker £ Lundberg*for defendant.

*Scheinberg, Wolf, Lapham £ Be Petris*for plaintiff.

D. Ormonde Ritchie, J.

The defendant makes this motion for an order dismissing the complaint upon the ground specified in subdivision 7 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, i.e., that the contract upon which the plaintiff’s claim is predicated is unenforcible under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds. The action is one for a judgment directing specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of real property. The documents relied upon by plaintiff as constituting the writings comprising the contract, or some note or memorandum thereof, as required by section 259 of the Real Property Law to constitute an enforcible contract for the sale of real property are three in number and consist of a letter from the broker employed by defendant to produce a purchaser of the property; plaintiff’s check in the sum of $500, a down payment on the purchase price; and a formal contract prepared by defendant’s attorney setting forth the terms of sale of the real property involved. The contract is not signed by the defendant vendor. The check made by plaintiff for a down payment was indorsed and deposited by defendant. The letter of defendant’s broker accompanying the check sets forth the terms of the transaction with clarity. The contract prepared by defendant’s attorney specifically sets forth the terms of the transaction. The issue presented on this motion is whether the letter, check and contract are to be read together, and if read together, whether they constitute a contract for the sale of real property within the requirements of section 259 of the Real Property Law. Prior to the decision rendered in *Crabtree*v. *Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.*(305 N. Y. 48) the courts were not in agreement on the issue as to what documents could be considered in determining the existence of a contract or memorandum for the sale of real property meeting the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. That case flatly stated the law to be that writings signed or unsigned, provided that they clearly refer to the subject matter of the transaction, and may be so established by competent evidence, may be read together. Under that decision and upon the documents presented in support of the existence of a contract in the present action permits the court of no other determination but that this motion must be and it is denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATIONSPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of StandardMicrosystems Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 30, 2007 of the Company fullycomplies, in all material respects, with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Dated: December 21, 2007 By:  /s/ Steven J. Bilodeau         (signature)       Steven J. Bilodeau
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 11, 2013

NO. 03-11-00817-CV

Caroline Miller, Catherine Austin, Dewey T. Bell, Kimberly Bell, Mike Bellows, 

Rhonda Bellows, Curtis Dwayne Breaux, Lisa Gayle Breaux, Thomas J. Canton, 

Vera Canton, Warren J. Clark, Patricia K. Clark, Barbara Garry, Donna Ann Green, 

Clifford Guidry, Shirley Guidry, Bradley K. Kloefkorn, Patricia C. Kloefkorn, 

Jerald Paul LeBlanc, Janet Elizabeth LeBlanc, Don Lofton, Mattie L. Lofton, 

Joel Daniel Love Jr., Drew Potter, Ronald James Prince, Roger D. Rashall Jr., 

Roger D. Rashall Sr., Cynthia G. Rashall, Larry C. Shoemaker, Martha Shoemaker, 

Anton Smikal, and Martha Smikal, Appellants

v.

South East Texas Regional Planning Commission, Jefferson County Appraisal District, 

Roland R. Bieber and Jefferson County Drainage District No. 6, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s 

judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the trial court’s 

judgment is in all things affirmed. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellants pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified 

below for observance.
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 Integrated Security Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending August 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Randy White, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Chief Financial 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.

Dated:  November 4, 2005      Integrated Security Technologies, Inc.


                              /s/ Randy White
                              ---------------
                              Randy White
                              Chief Executive Officer
                              Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 199 (Friday, October 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26315]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Office of Polar Programs' Office Advisory Committee; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Office of Polar Programs' Office Advisory Committee 
(1130).
    Date and Time: November 6-7, 2000; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 
1235, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Open, with the exception of discussions about 
any parts of the Committee of Visitors meeting which could include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. Specific times of closed 
sessions may be obtained from the contact person listed below prior 
to meeting date.
    Contact Person: Brenda Williams, Office of Polar Programs, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Suite 775, 
Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1030.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To advise NSF on the impact of its policies, 
programs and activities on the polar research community; to provide 
advice to the Director of OPP on issues related to long range 
planning, and to form ad hoc subcommittees to carry out needed 
studies and tasks.
    Agenda: Discussion of NSF-wide initiatives, long-range planning, 
Committee of Visitors Report, and GPRA.

    Dated: October 10, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-26315 Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5508 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5508

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on electrically operated 
                           pencil sharpeners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

 Mr. Stivers introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on electrically operated 
                           pencil sharpeners.

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

SECTION 1. ELECTRICALLY OPERATED PENCIL SHARPENERS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.22.82 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to electrically operated pencil 
sharpeners) is amended by striking the date in the effective period 
column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (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>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1410** 

In R e: WILLIAM L. HANDY, JR., a/k/a B. , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 8:04

- cr - 00559

- AW

- 7; 8:09

- cv - 02011

- AW; 8:13

- cv - 00477

- AW )

Submitted : June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. William L. Handy, Jr. , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William L. Handy, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed acting on his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion . He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Our review of the district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied Handy’s motion in December 2013 **.** Accordingly, because the district court has decided Handy ’ s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of Sterling Bancorp, a New York corporation (the Company), hereby
certifies that:

The
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2009
(the Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

|                        |                        |                                      
|----------------------- | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------
|Dated:
November 5, 2009 | /s/ Louis J.
 Cappelli
|                        |                       
|                        | Name:                  | Louis J.
 Cappelli                   
|                        | Title:                 | Chairman and
 Chief Executive Officer

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of
the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

62

---
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30565 26-APR-2012 10:48 AM NO. SCWC-30565 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
CAROL A. BROWN, M.D. and CAROL A. BROWN, M.D., INC., Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs. HAWAII MEDICAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION, a mutual benefit society; and ALAN VAN ETTEN, Arbitrator, Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 30565; CIV. NO. 08-1-0288) ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., and McKenna, J., Circuit Judge Ayabe, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused, Circuit Judge Chang, in place of Acoba, J., recused, and Circuit Judge Pollack, in place of Duffy, J., recused)It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the abovereferenced matter has not been entered by the Intermediate Court of Appeals, see Hawai ' i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (Supp. 2008); see also Hawai ' i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1) (2008), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners/Plaintiffs- Appellants’ application for writ of certiorari filed on April 23, 2012, is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing the application pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1(a) (“Within thirty days after thefiling of the intermediate court of appeals’ judgment on appeal or dismissal order, unless the time for filing the application is extended in accordance with this rule.”). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, April 26, 2012. R. Steven Geshell forpetitioners/plaintiffsappellants on the application /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Bert I. Ayabe /s/ Gary W. B. Chang /s/ Richard W. Pollack

2
----

**STOCKERYALE, INC.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of StockerYale, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Francis J. O'Brien, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,as adopted pursuant to ss. 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. 

This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgatedunder the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this Certification (A) shall not be deemed"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filingunder the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

| Date: August 16, 2004 | Name:  | /s/**Francis J. O'Brien                           |   |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | Francis J.       O'Brien                          |
|                  |   |                                              |
|                  | Title: | Chief       Financial Officer and       Treasurer |

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

| Exhibit 32.2  /  STKR | END | 2004 Form 10-Q |
|-------------------------------------------|-----|--------------------------|
#### GASSAWAY CONST. CO. et al. v. GENTRY (two cases).

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 5, 1954.

J. Basil Preston, Glasgow, for appellants.

Brents, Dickinson, Jr., Glasgow, for ap-pellees, M. L. Gentry and Artie Bacon Gentry.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

This appeal is from a judgment entered in these consolidated actions upon a jury’s verdict awarding appellees, M. L. Gentry, $6,000, and his wife, Artie B. Gentry, $3,500. The judgment must be reversed, and the award made to each appellee set aside, because the court erroneously instructed the jury concerning the damages recoverable by appellees from the appellants.

The actions arose out of a collision which occurred on June 21, 1952, when the truck owned by the appellant, Gassaway Construction Company, being driven by its servant and co-appellant, J. E. Runyon, collided head-on with a truck owned and operated by appellee, M. L. Gentry, on the highway between Glasgow and Burksville. As a result thereof, Mr. Gentry’s truck was demolished, and he and his wife, who was a passenger in his truck, sustained personal injuries. Separate suits, which were consolidated for trial, were filed by Mr. and Mrs. Gentry against the Gassaway Construction Company and its servant, Runyon.

In Mr. Gentry’s suit, the error, which was apparently inadvertently committed by the court in submitting the case to the jury, appears in instruction number 3, wherein the court, authorized the jury to award Mr. Gentry damages in a sum not to exceed $10,000 for “ * * * time which he has lost, * * * as the direct and proximate result of said injury, * * ” when the allegation of Mr. Gentry’s petition only sought $1,200 on this special item of damage. The, coprt repeated this error in the same instruction by including this erroneous figure of $10,000 in the aggregate amount of damages it permitted Gentry to recover. Under these circumstances we are constrained to hold the error prejudicial. Coe v. Adwell, Ky., 244 S.W.2d 737; Dowdy v. McGuire, 216 Ky. 374, 287 S.W. 948.

*659With regards to Mrs. Gentry’s suit we find that the court committed error in instructing the jury. In submitting Mrs. Gentry’s case to the jury, by instruction, number 2, the court instructed the jury that they would " * * * award her such further sum as will fairly and reasonably compensate her for any time she has lost * * * as the direct and proximate result of such injury, * * * not to exceed $10,000, * * ” - While it is true there was some evidence on this theory of damage, such evidence was sparse and only indicated a temporary loss of time and failed to show any loss of specific earnings as a result of her injury. In the same instruction the court included the figure of $10,000 for “loss of time” in the total of $20,327. Thus the jury was permitted to consider these unsubstantiated sums of damage in making up its verdict. Therefore, we must hold that the instruction, as given, was prejudicially erroneous. All other questions reserved.

Judgment reversed, with directions to set aside the judgments of M. L. Gentry and Artie Bacon Gentry against the Gassaway Construction Company and J. E. Runyon.
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Kevin J. High, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Cytation Corporation; 
2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 
3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 
4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
     (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated 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 registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 
     (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 
5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 
     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 
     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 19, 2004



/s/Kevin J. High                                  
Kevin J. High 
President