alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Helen Braverman, Plaintiff, *v.*Allen Braverman, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

November 7, 1957.

*662
      *David Farber*for defendant.

*Charles L. Meckenberg*for plaintiff.

Louis L. Friedman, J.

Defendant moves, pursuant to section 1451 of the Civil Practice Act, to stay this breach of contract action until arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of a contract entered into between the parties.

The contract in question, in which it is claimed the arbitration provision exists, is one for separation of the parties as husband and wife, and provides, among other things, that the defendant husband shall pay to the plaintiff wife $75 per week for her support and maintenance and the additional sum of $25 per week on account of an acknowledged debt to her in the sum of $20,000. In addition to these payments it is provided that the defendant shall pay to plaintiff 25% of any increase in the annual net profit of the defendant’s business and 25% of the annual income earned by the defendant from other sources. Paragraph eleventh of the agreement provides that ‘1 In the event any dispute or misunderstanding arises out of or in connection with this agreement, recourse shall be had to arbitration * * * If there is recourse to arbitration * * * the costs thereof are to be borne by the party against whom the award is made. However, should there be any application for reduction in payments due the wife under this agreement, the husband shall pay all costs.”

The defendant made the payments in accordance with the agreement until May 24, 1957, but since said date it is alleged that he has failed to make the weekly payments towards the reduction of the debt.

Defendant asserts that a dispute has arisen with respect to the defendant’s capacity to make the payments; that pursuant to the agreement he is entitled to a re-examination of the payments in the event of a change in his financial circumstances and accordingly he has served notice of intention to conduct *663an arbitration. Plaintiff asserts that it was the parties’ intention to keep the total weekly payment fixed at a minimum of $100 without any right by the defendant to demand any reduction in the said amount; that it was intended that the provision for arbitration shall apply only in the event that an increase above the $100 weekly has been paid, and a reduction in such increase should thereafter be sought.

The jurisdiction to direct arbitration springs from the agreement, and must be fairly construed *(Matter of International Assn. of Machinists [Cutler-Hammer],*271 App. Div. 917, affd. 297 N. Y. 519; *Matter of Lipman [Haeuser Shellac Co.],*289 N. Y. 76). Although the parties agree that the last sentence of paragraph eleventh makes provision for arbitration, when a demand is made for a reduction in payments, it is clear from the papers before the court that it was never the intention of the parties that the reduction was ever to be below the fixed sum of $100 a week.

Accordingly, the application for a stay pending arbitration is denied and the stay contained in the order to show cause herein is vacated.

Settle order on notice.
#### POLIS v. ALFORD.

No. 12717.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 5, 1954.

Kelley, Looney, McLean & Littleton, Edinburg, for appellant.

J. F. Carl, Edinburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The transcript and statement of facts were received by the Clerk of this Court on March 30, 1954. Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that the record was not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 386, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.- The question before us *919■relates to the date from which the sixty-day •period set forth in the rule mentioned •should be computed.

In reply to the motion to dismiss, appellant has submitted a supplemental transcript containing a corrected judgment.

The judgment contained in the original transcript recites that, “On this the 25th day -of January, A.D., 1954, came on to be heard upon regular setting and at a regular term •of this Court, the above styled and numbered cause for trial * * It is indicated that such trial was had and concluded and judgment rendered on the day mentioned.

There appears below the judge’s signature to the judgment, this notation: “Entered: Feby. 3, 1954.”

This notation is not in substantial •compliance with Rule 306a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that when a judgment is “reduced to writing and *signed*by the trial judge *and the date of signing stated*therein”, such date may be taken as the date of rendition of judgment for the purpose of determining the periods within which the various steps of an appeal may be taken. The term “entered” is not synonymous with the word, “signed”, but has a definite fixed legal meaning and refers to the ministerial act of the clerk of a court in spreading the judgment upon the minutes. Bostwick v. Bucklin, 144 Tex. 375, 190 S.W.2d 818, and authorities therein cited.

However, the corrected judgment, contained in the tendered supplemental transcript, affirmatively shows by its recitals that such judgment was reduced to writing and *signed*by the trial .judge on February 3, 1954.

The corrected judgment is in substantial compliance with Rule 306a, and we have concluded to permit the filing of the supplemental transcript containing the same. As the commencement of the sixty-day period may pfoperly be computed from February 3, 1954, the date the judgment was reduced to writing and *-signed*by' the trial judge, the transcript and statement of facts-presented here on March 30,1954, was within the time prescribed by Rule 386, and the motion to dismiss is accordingly overruled.

Motion to file supplemental transcript granted.

Motion to dismiss appeal overruled.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 210 (Monday, October 30, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27736]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 876

[Docket No. 94N-0380]


Gastroenterology and Urology Devices; Effective Date of the 
Requirement for Premarket Approval of the Implanted Mechanical/
Hydraulic Urinary Continence Device; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final 
rule that appeared in the Federal Register of September 26, 2000 (65 FR 
57726). The final rule requires the filing of a premarket approval 
application or a notice of completion of a product development protocol 
for the implanted mechanical/hydraulic urinary continence device, a 
generic type of medical device intended for the treatment of urinary 
incontinence. In the final rule, the effective date was stated 
incorrectly. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole L. Wolanski, Center for Devices 
and Radiological Health (HFZ-470), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 
Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-594-2194.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 00-24632 appearing on page 57726 
in the Federal Register of September 26, 2000, the following correction 
is made:
    1. On page 57726, in the second column, under the EFFECTIVE DATE 
caption, the date ``October 26, 2000'' is corrected to read ``September 
26, 2000.''

    Dated: October 19, 2000.
Linda S. Kahan,
Deputy Director for Regulations Policy, Center for Devices and 
Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 00-27736 Filed 10-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



In
connection with the Annual Report of CLP Holdings Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter P.
W. Tse, Group Executive Director & Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: June 20, 2006



By:

/s/ Peter P. W. TsePeter P. W. Tse Group Executive Director & Chief Financial Officer




|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
|- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Termination Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Devcon International Corp. 
 595 South Federal Highway 
 Suite 500 
 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 
 March 2, 2006 
 Via Facsimile Transmission

 Donald L. Smith, Jr. 
 1806 Sable Palm Road 
 Boca Raton, FL 33432 
  

			
	Re:	  	Notice of Termination of Stock Purchase Agreement, dated January 23, 2006 (the “Agreement”), by and between Devcon International Corp. (the “Company”) and
Donald L. Smith, Jr.

 Dear Don: 
 Reference is made to the Stock Purchase Agreement. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed thereto. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Stock Purchase Agreement may only be
terminated with no further obligation of either of the parties thereto to each other, and shall be terminated, if, prior to the Closing, the Seller receives an offer which its Board of Directors, by majority vote (not including Purchaser), deems to
be superior to the consideration provided for herein and the Seller enters into an agreement to sell the Shares or assets of the Companies in connection with such offer. 
 The parties hereto mutually acknowledge and agree that such an offer has been received by the Seller and that Seller’s Board of Directors, by majority vote (not including Purchaser), has deemed such offer to be
superior to the consideration provided for in the Stock Purchase Agreement and that Seller is entering into that certain Stock Purchase Agreement, dated March 2, 2006 (the “New Stock Purchase Agreement”), by and among Gary
O’Rourke and A. Hadeed or his nominee in connection with such offer. Accordingly, the parties mutually agree and acknowledge that the Stock Purchase Agreement is hereby terminated with no obligation of either of the parties hereto to each
other. 
 Additionally, the parties hereto mutually acknowledge and agree, that notwithstanding the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement,
the parties waive any obligation of Seller to reimburse Purchaser for his expenses. You also hereby acknowledge that you have not received any benefit or payment, whether as a broker or otherwise, as a result of the participation of the other
Purchasers under the New Stock Purchase Agreement. 
  

			
	Sincerely,
	
	DEVCON INTERNATIONAL CORP.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Stephen J. Ruzika

	Name:	 	Stephen J. Ruzika
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer and President










	
	WAIVER OF REIMBURSEMENT &
	AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE
	AGREEMENT:
	
	 /s/ Donald L. Smith, Jr.

	Donald L. Smith, Jr.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-40761

Summary Calendar

ASEMENDES WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

KEITH J. PRICE, Warden, Coffield Unit; KEVIN MOORE,

Assistant Warden, Coffield Unit; STACY D. LAYTON, Sgt,

Coffield Unit; CARY GOLDEN, Sgt, Coffield Unit; BOBBY A. PARTON,

Lt, Coffield Unit; BRIAN T. PARKER, Correctional Officer,

Coffield Unit; JAMES W. SUBER, Correctional Officer, Coffield

Unit; TYDE R. WEIL, Correctional Officer, Coffield Unit,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CV-954

July 30, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 209 (Friday, October 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64421-64422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27701]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[I.D. 102300D]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (NOAA).
    Title: Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document.
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0040.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 390.
    Number of Respondents: 50.
    Average Hours Per Response: 5 minutes for a documentation not 
needing validation, 20 minutes for a document needing validation.
    Needs and Uses: U.S. tuna dealers who import or export bluefin tuna 
are required to complete and transmit to NOAA a Bluefin Tuna 
Statistical Document (BSD) as required by the International Commission 
for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Foreign tuna dealers who export 
to the United States must ensure that a BSD validated by a government 
official accompanies the import.
    Affected Public: Business and other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897Copies of the above 
information collection proposal can be

[[Page 64422]]

obtained by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Forms 
Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the 
Internet at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#125f517e736b667d7c52767d713c757d64"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f8b5bb9499818c9796b89c979bd69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: October 17, 2000.
Madeleine Clayton,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-27701 Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE: 3510-22 -S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of DirectorsEvolving Systems, Inc.:

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-3(Nos. 333-112082 and 333-122476) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-144852,333-141527, 333-103655, 333-89438, 333-61446, 333-82473, 333-60779, 333-116085and 333-58285) of Evolving Systems, Inc. of our report dated March 14,2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Evolving Systems, Inc.as of December 31, 2006, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss),and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31,2006, which report appears in the December 31, 2007 annual report on Form 10-Kof Evolving Systems, Inc.

 

Our report refersto the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123(R),*Share-Based Payment.*

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Denver, ColoradoMarch 13, 2008

 

----
Amendment No. 1 to Asset Purchase Agreement




 Exhibit 10(b) 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 This Amendment No. 1 to Asset Purchase Agreement
is made as of August 31, 2005 by and between Alfa Financial Corporation and OFC Servicing Corporation. 
 The parties entered into that
certain Asset Purchase Agreement dated June 6, 2005 (the “Agreement”), and they now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein. 
 In consideration of the mutual promises made in the Agreement, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
 1.
Section 9(a)(2) of the Agreement is amended to change “August 31, 2005” to “September 30, 2005.” 
 2.
Section 9(a)(3) of the Agreement is amended to change “August 31, 2005” to “September 30, 2005.” 
 3. The Agreement
remains in full force and effect, unamended except as expressly set forth above. 
 In witness whereof, each party has caused this amendment
to be executed by its duly officer. 
  

			
	ALFA FINANCIAL CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ C. Lee Ellis

	Name:	 	C. Lee Ellis
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President
	
	OFC SERVICING CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Richard A. Hills, Jr.

	Name:	 	Richard A. Hills, Jr.
	Title:	 	Vice President
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3229 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to authorize advance 

appropriations for the Indian Health Service by providing 2-fiscal-year 

budget authority, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 1, 2013 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself and Mr. BEN RAY LUJA ́N of New Mexico) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 

Budget, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources and 

Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to authorize advance appropriations for the Indian Health 

Service by providing 2-fiscal-year budget authority, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Indian Health Service 

5 Advance Appropriations Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3229 IH

1 SEC. 2. ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS FOR CERTAIN INDIAN 

2 HEALTH SERVICE ACCOUNTS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 825 of the Indian Health 

4 Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1680o) is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before ‘‘There are au6 thorized’’; and 

7 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(b) For each fiscal year, beginning with fiscal year 

9 2015, discretionary new budget authority provided for the 

10 Indian Health Services and Indian Health Facilities ac11 counts of the Indian Health Service shall include advance 

12 discretionary new budget authority that first becomes 

13 available for the first fiscal year after the budget year. 

14 ‘‘(c) The Secretary shall include in documents sub15 mitted to Congress in support of the President’s budget 

16 submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United 

17 States Code, for fiscal year 2015 and each succeeding fis18 cal year detailed estimates of the funds necessary for the 

19 Indian Health Services and Indian Health Facilities ac20 counts of the Indian Health Service for the fiscal year fol21 lowing the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted.’’. 

22 (b) SUBMISSION OF BUDGET REQUEST.—Section 

23 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is amended— 

24 (1) by striking ‘‘(37) the list’’ and inserting 

25 ‘‘(39) the list’’; and 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3229 IH

1 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

2 paragraph: 

3 ‘‘(40) information on estimates of appropria4 tions for the fiscal year following the fiscal year for 

5 which the budget is submitted for the following ac6 counts of the Indian Health Service: 

7 ‘‘(A) Indian Health Services. 

8 ‘‘(B) Indian Health Facilities.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 209 (Friday, October 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64474-64475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27603]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration


Environmental Impact Statement; Rutland County, VT

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an

[[Page 64475]]

environmental impact statement is no longer being prepared for a 
previously proposed highway project [FEGC 419-3(44)] in Rutland County, 
Vermont.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth R. Sikora, Jr., FHWA 
Environmental Program Manager, P.O. Box 568, Montpelier, Vermont 05601, 
telephone: (802) 828-4423; or David J. Scott, P.E., Director of Project 
Development, Vermont Agency of Transportation, National Life Building, 
Drawer 33, Montpelier, Vermont 05633-5001, telephone: (802) 828-2663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice of Intent to prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement for a bypass or upgrade of U.S. Routes 4 
and 7 in Rutland, Vermont, was published by FHWA in the March 22, 1993 
Federal Register. A Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed project was issued in the 
December 19, 1997 Federal Register. The DEIS was circulated with the 
comment period ending on March 6, 1998.
    Because of the many environmental issues associated with the 
preferred alternative, the Vermont Legislature terminated the 
environmental impact study for the project in Section 1(c)(2) of Act 
156 of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session. Accordingly, FHWA has 
determined that a Final Environmental Impact Statement will not be 
prepared. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 
20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing 
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on 
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.)

    Issued on October 19, 2000.
Kenneth R. Sikora, Jr.,
Environmental Program Manager, Montpelier, Vermont.
[FR Doc. 00-27603 Filed 10-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M
EX-21
                                  Subsidiaries


                    Subsidiaries of Brill Media Company, LLC

Brill Media Management, Inc.
BMC Holdings, LLC
Huron Holdings, LLC
Northern Colorado Holdings, LLC
NCR III, LLC
NCH II, LLC
Northland Holdings, LLC
CMN Holding, Inc.
Brill Radio, Inc.
Brill Newspapers, Inc.
Reading Radio, Inc.
Tri-State Broadcasting, Inc.
Northern Colorado Radio, Inc.
NCR II, Inc.
Central Missouri Broadcasting, Inc.
CMB II, Inc.
Northland Broadcasting, LLC
NB II, Inc.
Central Michigan Newspapers, Inc.
Cadillac Newspapers, Inc.
CMN Associated Publications, Inc.
Central Michigan Distribution Co., L.P.
Central Michigan Distribution Co., Inc.
Gladwin Newspapers, Inc.
Graph Ads Printing, Inc.
Midland Buyer's Guide, Inc.
St. Johns Newspapers, Inc.
Huron P.S., LLC
Huron Newspapers, LLC
Advertisers P.S., LLC
Central Printing Service, LLC
Upper Michigan Holdings, Inc.
Upper Michigan Holdings, LLC
Upper Michigan Management, Inc.
Upper Michigan Newspapers, LLC
BMC Holdings, Inc.
Huron Holdings Management, Inc.
Huron Newspapers Management, Inc.
Huron P.S. Management, Inc.
Northern Colorado Holdings Management, Inc.
Northland Broadcasting Management, Inc.
Northland Holdings Management, Inc.