alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A01A1114.

#### DOVER v. MATHIS.

(549 SE2d 541)

MlKELL, Judge.

Ben Dover appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Sonny Mathis d/b/a State-Wide Realty & Auction (“Mathis”) and its denial of Dover’s summary judgment motion in this breach of contract case. For reasons stated below, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Mathis and affirm the denial of Dover’s motion for summary judgment.

> Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.1

So viewed, the evidence shows that Dover and Mathis are licensed real estate brokers. Dover contends that Mathis agreed to pay him a one percent commission from the sale of a parcel of real estate if Dover produced a purchaser who presented the highest bid for the property. Conversely, Mathis contends that there was no such agreement. Mathis sold the property to W. B. Jones, who Dover contends is the purchaser he supplied to buy the property.

Dover filed an action against Mathis alleging breach of contract seeking to recover the remaining commission owed, which totaled *754$11,019.53. Dover attached to his complaint what he alleged to be a balance sheet from Mathis showing that Mathis deducted fees from the proposed commission, resulting in a balance due and paid to Dover of $8. Mathis denies that he sent this balance sheet to Dover but admitted that he paid him $8. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

Decided May 29,2001.

*Kenneth G. Lawrence,*for appellant.

*Moore & Studstill, Daniel L. Studstill,*for appellee.

On appeal, Dover argues in two enumerations of error that the trial court erred by failing to apply appropriately the summary judgment standard. Specifically, the trial court weighed credibility and made findings of material facts in dispute. We agree.

The evidence presented on summary judgment consisted of opposing affidavits of Dover and Mathis as to whether they entered an oral agreement. In deciding that there was no agreement, the trial court appears to have found Mathis’ affidavit more credible than Dover’s. However, “the trial court cannot in considering summary judgment weigh the evidence or determine its credibility.”2 Instead, “[w]here there is a conflict in the evidence as to the existence of an oral contract or as to its terms, the matter must be submitted to a jury for resolution.”3 Accordingly, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to Mathis and affirm the denial of Dover’s summary judgment motion.

*Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.*

*Blackburn, C. J., and Pope, P. J., concur.*

1

 (Citations omitted.) *Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp.,*226 Ga. App. 459 (1) (486 SE2d 684) (1997).

2

 (Citation omitted.) *State Farm Fire &c. Co. v. Martin,*174 Ga. App. 308, 309 (329 SE2d 577) (1985).

3

 (Citations omitted.) *Spoon v. Herndon,*167 Ga. App. 794, 795 (1) (307 SE2d 693) (1983).
#### SKAGGS v. SKAGGS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 8, 1953.

Gardner & Gardner, West Liberty, for appellant. . ■.

Nickell & Walter, West Liberty, for ap-pellee.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

The appellant, Walter Skaggs, filed this action to enjoin the appellee, Jerry Skaggs, from using a passway the former had acquired by condemnation over the latter’s land and for damages for trespass thereon. The court sustained a general demurrer to the petition as amended and. upon appellant’s declining to plead further, dismissed the petition.

Appellant contends that appellee has no right to use the passway without compensating him. In support of his contention he relies upon KRS 381.630, which provides:

> “Nothing in KRS 381.580 to 381.620 shall operate to give any person, firm or corporation exclusive use of the passage, ,but any other person, firm or corporation may use the passage upon paying proper compensation therefor. If no agreement can be made for such compensation, then the right to such use may be condemned as provided in, KRS 381.580 to 381.620.”

The fallacy of appellant’s contention is that the statute does not apply to the owner of the fee in the land condemned.

In Smith v. Price, 312 Ky. 474, 227 S.W.2d 981, 983, which was decided subsequent to the enactment of KRS 381.630, this Court in considering a similar question to the one now presented, said:

> “Appellant as the owner of the property in fee is entitled to use it in a lawful manner, as in this case, to-pasture his - livestock.- But in doing this *902as the owner of the servient estate, he cannot destroy or unduly obstruct the rights of the dominant estate created by the easement over his property. The servient owner must permit the free and unrestricted use of the pass-way by the owner of the dominant estate while the latter must use his rights so as to be as little burdensome as possible to the servient estate. Sandman v. Highland, 312 Ky. 128, 226 S.W.2d 766, * * * ”

 We are of the opinion that when the passway is not in use by appellant, ap-pellee is entitled to make any reasonable use of it without compensating appellant, but appellee should not do damage to it. The petition, insofar as damages are attempted to be plead, is insufficient, as it sets forth conclusions and not facts.

Thus it follows that the court correctly sustained the demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.
U.S. Department of the Treasury

Office of Public Affairs

Press Release: July 16, 2021

Contact: Treasury Public Affairs, (202) 622-2960 

Readout of Financial Stability Oversight Council Meeting on July 16, 2021

Washington – U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen today convened a meeting of the 

Financial Stability Oversight Council (Council) in executive session by videoconference. 

At the meeting, the Council received an update on the Federal Reserve Board’s recently 

announced bank stress test results for 2021. 

The Council also heard a presentation from Federal Housing Finance Agency staff on recent 

trends in housing markets, including prices, sales, and mortgage forbearance rates. 

The Council also received an update from Treasury staff regarding progress in developing the 

Council report to be issued under the Executive Order on Climate-Related Financial Risks.

In addition, the Council voted to approve the minutes of its previous meeting on June 11, 2021. 

In attendance at the Council meeting today by videoconference were the following members:

• Janet L. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury (Chairperson of the Council)

• Jerome Powell, Chair, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

• Michael J. Hsu, Acting Comptroller of the Currency

• David Uejio, Acting Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

• Gary Gensler, Chair, Securities and Exchange Commission

• Jelena McWilliams, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

• Rostin Behnam, Acting Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading Commission

• Sandra L. Thompson, Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency

• Todd Harper, Chairman, National Credit Union Administration

• Thomas Workman, Independent Member with Insurance Expertise

• Steven Seitz, Director, Federal Insurance Office (non-voting member)

• Charles G. Cooper, Commissioner, Texas Department of Banking (non-voting member)
• Melanie Lubin, Securities Commissioner, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, 

Securities Division (non-voting member)

Additional information regarding the Council, its work, and the recently approved meeting 

minutes is available at http://www.fsoc.gov.

####
#### ROBINSON v. STATE.

No. 22764.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 16, 1944.

H. A. C. Brummett and E. H. Boedeker, both of Dickens, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for murder, punishment assessed being five years in the penitentiary.

The indictment charges the offense. The record is before the court without statement of facts or bills of exception, save an exception reserved to the court’s action in overruling appellant’s motion for new trial. Nothing appears from the record which indicates that this was error.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### ROSE v. STATE.

No. 22971.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 29, 1944.

*981A. A. Kern, of Dallas, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for theft of property ■over the value of fifty dollars. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of seven years.

The indictment and all proceedings appear regular. The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of ■exception, in the absence of which *nothing*is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Page 1 of 1

TTB 3.1 Table

$000,000s

Agency External Agency External Total Agency External Agency External Total Agency External Agency External Total Percent

Capital Investments Total 7.412 - 17.516 - 24.928 6.414 - 15.500 - 21.914 9.270 - 16.765 - 26.035 19%

Major IT sub-total

non-Major IT sub-total 7.412 - 2.225 - 9.637 6.414 - 1.883 - 8.297 9.270 - 1.973 - 11.243 36%

Standard/Non-Standard IT sub-total - - 15.291 - 15.291 - - 13.617 - 13.617 - - 14.792 - 14.792 9%

IT Total 7.412 - 17.516 - 24.928 6.414 - 15.500 - 21.914 9.270 - 16.765 - 26.035 19%

non-IT Total

TTB non-Major IT Investments

TTB Mission Applications Support Services (MASS) - - 2.225 - 2.225 - - 1.883 - 1.883 - - 1.973 - 1.973 5%

015-13-1008-0 TTB Salary and Expense - - 2.225 - 2.225 - - 1.883 - 1.883 - - 1.973 - 1.973 5%

TTB Regulatory System 4.274 - - - 4.274 4.082 - - - 4.082 3.009 - - - 3.009 -26%

015-13-1008-0 TTB Salary and Expense 4.274 - - - 4.274 4.082 - - - 4.082 3.009 - - - 3.009 -26%

TTB Tax System 3.138 - - - 3.138 2.332 - - - 2.332 6.261 - - - 6.261 169%

015-13-1008-0 TTB Salary and Expense 3.138 - - - 3.138 2.332 - - - 2.332 6.261 - - - 6.261 169%

TTB Standard/Non-Standard IT Investments

TTB IT Infrastructure End User Systems and Support 

(ITI EUSS)

- - 4.582 - 4.582 - - 4.385 - 4.385 - - 4.421 - 4.421 1%

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

- - 1.451 - 1.451 - - 1.368 - 1.368 - - 1.353 - 1.353 -1%

015-13-1008-0 TTB Salary and Expense - - 3.130 - 3.130 - - 3.017 - 3.017 - - 3.069 - 3.069 2%

TTB IT Infrastructure Mainframes and Server 

Services and Support (ITI MSSS)

- - 3.296 - 3.296 - - 3.050 - 3.050 - - 3.077 - 3.077 1%

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

- - 0.265 - 0.265 - - 0.210 - 0.210 - - 0.213 - 0.213 1%

015-13-1008-0 TTB Salary and Expense - - 3.031 - 3.031 - - 2.840 - 2.840 - - 2.864 - 2.864 1%

TTB IT Infrastructure Telecommunications Systems 

and Support (ITI TSS)

- - 3.540 - 3.540 - - 2.740 - 2.740 - - 2.775 - 2.775 1%

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

- - 0.343 - 0.343 - - 0.300 - 0.300 - - 0.308 - 0.308 3%

015-13-1008-0 TTB Salary and Expense - - 3.197 - 3.197 - - 2.440 - 2.440 - - 2.468 - 2.468 1%

TTB IT Management - - 0.688 - 0.688 - - 0.684 - 0.684 - - 0.669 - 0.669 -2%

015-13-1008-0 TTB Salary and Expense - - 0.688 - 0.688 - - 0.684 - 0.684 - - 0.669 - 0.669 -2%

TTB IT Security and Compliance Program - - 3.185 - 3.185 - - 2.757 - 2.757 - - 3.849 - 3.849 40%

015-05-1881 Community Development Financial 

Institutions Fund Program Account

- - 0.142 - 0.142 - - 0.108 - 0.108 - - 0.111 - 0.111 3%

015-13-1008-0 TTB Salary and Expense - - 3.044 - 3.044 - - 2.649 - 2.649 - - 3.738 - 3.738 41%

FY 2017 Actuals FY 2018 President's Budget FY 2019 President's Budget

DME O&M Total DME O&M Total DME O&M Total

Change 

from CY 

to BY
Exhibit 10.3(E)

 

[***] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.

 

CONFIDENTIAL

 

January 9, 2014

 

Marina Biotech, Inc.

3830 Monte Villa Parkway

Bothell, Washington, 98021

Attn: Michael French, Chief executive Officer

 

Re:                             Agreement re Option Compound and miR-34 Sequences

 

Dear Michael:

 

As you know, Mirna Therapeutics, Inc. (“MirnaRx”) and Marina Biotech, Inc. (“Marina Bio”) have entered into an amendment, effective as December 27, 2013, to that certain license agreement dated December 22, 2011 (the “License Agreement”, and such amendment the “Amendment”).  This letter agreement is that certain Amendment Side Letter referred to in the Amendment, and it sets forth the RNA oligonucleotide sequences of the Option Compounds that the Parties are agreeing to designate as Selected MirnaRx Compounds pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement.  Capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment Side Letter shall have the meaning given to those terms in the License Agreement.

 

The Parties hereby agree that the list of RNA oligonucleotide sequences attached as the Appendix of this Amendment Side Letter comprises sequences of miR-34, [***] as well as the sequences of two Option Compounds [***] under the terms of the License Agreement.  The Parties further agree that such sequences are the highly confidential information of MirnaRx, and Marina Bio shall comply with the confidentiality obligations set forth in the License Agreement with respect thereto, and shall not disclose such sequences to any third party or use them for any purpose outside of the License Agreement.

 

	
AGREED TO BY:
    	
Mirna   Therapeutics, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Signature:
    	
/s/   Paul Lammers
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Paul   Lammers, M,D., M.Sc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief   Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Marina   Biotech, Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Signature:
    	
/s/   Michael French
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Michael   French
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Chief   Executive Officer
    


 











 

CONFIDENTIAL

 

APPENDIX

 

miR-34 Sequence:

[***]

 

[***]

 

[***] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                 ------------





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

In connection with the Annual Report of Integrated Data Corp (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David
C. Bryan, President and acting Chief Financial Officer (principal financial
officer) of the Company, 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 Integrated Data Corp.


Date:  August 26, 2008          By:  /s/ David C. Bryan
                                     ------------------
                                     David C. Bryan
                                     President and acting
                                     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 Integrated Data Corp. and will
be retained by Integrated Data Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
S?41UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGIONIXPO75HawthorneStreetSanFrancisco,CA94105-3901November19,2012GaryChandlerPresident,PioPicoEnergyCenter,LLCP.O.Box955922542SingletreeLaneSouthJordan,Utah84095Re:FinalPreventionofSignificantDeteriorationPermitforPioPicoEnergyCenterDearMr.Chandler:InaccordancewiththeCleanAirAct(CAA),asamended(42U.S.C7401etseq.),theU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Region9(EPA)hasreviewedyourapplicationforaCAAPreventionofSignificantDeterioration(PSD)permitauthorizingtheconstructionandoperationofanew300-megawatt(MW,nominal)naturalgas-firedpowerplantknownasthePioPicoEnergyCenterinSanDiegoCounty,California.EPAissuedandpublishedrequestsforpubliccommentregardingEPA’sproposedactionontheabove-referencedapplicationinJune2012andAugust2012.EPAreceivedcommentsduringthepubliccommentperiod.EnclosedisacopyofourResponsetoCommentsdocumentforourfinalpermitdecision.Afterconsiderationoftheexpressedviewsofallcommenters,thepertinentfederalstatutesandregulations,andadditionalmaterialrelevanttotheapplicationandcontainedinourAdministrativeRecord,EPAherebyissuestheenclosedPSDPermitforthefacilitydescribedabove.Thefinalpermit,ResponsetoCommentsdocumentandotherkeydocumentsrelevanttothefinalPSDpermitarealsoavailablethroughalinkatourwebsite,www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/r9-permits-issued.html#psd,oratwww.regulations.gov(DocketID#EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0978).Within30daysaftertheserviceofnoticeannouncingtheEPA’sfinalpermitdecision,anypersonwhofiledcommentsontheproposedpermitorparticipatedinthepublichearingmaypetitiontheEPA’sEnvironmentalAppealsBoard(EAB)toreviewanyconditionofthefinalpermit.Thepetitionmustincludeastatementofthereason(s)forrequestingreviewbytheEAB,includingademonstrationthatanyissuesbeingraisedwereraisedduringthepubliccommentperiodtotheextentrequiredbytheregulationsat40CFRPart124andwhenappropriate,ashowingthattheconditionsinquestionarebasedon1)afindingoffactorconclusionoflawwhichiserroneous,or2)anexerciseofdiscretionoranimportantpolicyconsiderationwhichtheEABshould,initsdiscretion,review.Pleasesee40CFR124.19andvisithttp://www.epa.gov/eab/formoreinformationregardingtheproceduresforappealofaPSDpermitdecisiontotheEAB.PrintedonRecycledPaperThisPSDpennitshalltakeeffectthirty(30)daysfromthedateofserviceofnoticeofEPA’sfinalpermitdecisionunlessapetition(s)forappealisproperlyandtimelyfiledwiththeEAB.Intheeventapetition(s)forreviewisfiled,constructionofthefacilitycannotbeginunderthisPSDpermituntilresolutionoftheEABpetition(s).Ifyouhaveanyquestionsregardingthismatter,pleasecontactRogerKohnoftheEPA’sRegion9PermitsOfficeat(415)972-3973.Sincerely,DeborahJordanDirector,AirDivisioncc:SteveHill,SierraResearchTomWeeks,SanDiegoCountyAirPollutionControlDistrictEricK.Solorio,CaliforniaEnergyCommissionMichaelTollstrup,CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard2
|                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                         
|                                                                                                      
|No chart available.                                                                                   
|No chart available.                                                                                   
|                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                      
|U.S. Refinery Shell Storage Capacity of Other Renewable Diesel Fuel as of January 1 (Thousand Barrels)
|                                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     | --     | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
## Tej-Jet ofDel LLC 98 BYRAM SHOREROAD

GREENWICH, CT06830 Email:jackbart36@gmail.com Cell: (203) 921-6400 6/3/2015 US Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations WestBuilding, Ground Floor, RoomW 12-140 1200NewJersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

RE: Request for Exemption

To WhomltMay Concern, Via Certified Receipt Mail

I ama "person" and owner/officer, requesting an exemption registered in the corporation Tej-Jet ofDelll.C,for my Morane Saulnier MS760 aircraft, bearing Serial# 89, at 98 Byram Shore Road Greenwich, CT06830. This is an exemption to 14CFR, FederalAviation Regulation 91.881, Civil subsonicjet airplanes weighing 75,000 pounds orless. This regulation is in regard to stage 3 noise compliance. Effective date December 31,2015. Inthe docket for rule making for this regulatory change, this make and model 

### was excluded fromthe FAA analysis. The docket number is FAA-2013-0503; Arndt. No. 91.328. This make and model airplane has a gross weight of8,750 pounds and thereby is a small aircraft, under 12,500 pounds. This aircraft is a twin enginejet powered airplane. This airplane was certified in the United States July 1958. Type Certificate number 7A3. This airplane is clearly listed in FAA Advisory Circular 36-3H. change 1, dated 5/25/2012, Estimated Airplane Noise Levels in A-Weighed Decibels. The dataprovided in this ACwas provided by DGAC (French Aviation Authority) as noted in the AC. The noise levels are within the stage 3 noise compliance requirements. The operation ofthese aircraft 

### will not be in any conflict with stage 3noise regulations. TheFAAApproved Airplane Flight Manualdoes not contain dataregarding Stage 3 compliance. The present flight manual is dated April1963. This exemption has no effect on safety. This airplane is the first Very Light Jet (VIJ) and has historical roots. These airplanes operate for personaltransportation oftheir respective owners and also are frequently taken to "Airshows" for display to the generalpublic. This newregulation takes effect December 31, 2015. Exemption to this regulation is needed before this date to allowfor recurrent training and normal operations ofthese airplanes in theNational Airspace System Summary: AnExemption is hereby granted to Morane SaulnierMS760, Serial #89, owned by Tej-Jet ofDelll.C, at 98 Byram Shore Road Greenwich, CT 06830, and this exemption is to operate this Morane SaulnierMS760 series aircraft to and from any suitable airports in the contiguous United States. Thankyou for yourassistance 

### in this matter.