alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Griggs v. Krawitz

*241
      *David A. Martino,*for plaintiffs.

*Edwin Krawitz,*for defendant.

November 14, 1979

THOMSON, *J.,*

The above-captioned matter is before us on submission of briefs by counsel on defendant’s prehminary objections to plaintiffs’ complaint, being one in trespass for alleged malpractice, or negligent representation of plaintiffs by defendant, an attorney, in a certain trespass action, filed to No. 529, May term, 1967.

Defendant’s objections are two-fold: (1) that the complaint is without the requisite specificity to allow him to properly plead thereto; and (2) that the complaint is demurrable as it demonstrates on its face a violation of a non-waivable statute of limitations. We will consider first the motion for a more specific complaint.

Defendant objects that various allegations as to time are not set forth in a sufficiently specific manner, namely: (1) when defendant failed to prepare an amended complaint and generally committed other acts of negligence complained of; (2) when defendant failed to take certain depositions of various essential witnesses now dead or incapacitated, and when such witnesses died or became incapacitated; and (3) when plaintiffs requested defendant to turn over the file of the case to them.

As to the first of these objections, plaintiffs contend that these facts were of record in another action between the said parties. Perhaps so, but this is *242not of record in this matter, and hence, we cannot consider such a proposition as true. However, we feel that requiring such dates to be pled would be to require the pleading of evidence. For this reason, we feel this objection must fall.

As to the other objections, although plaintiffs’ complaint could have been drafted in a more clear and concise form, we read this pleading as alleging continuing violations which persist to the time of the filing of the complaint. Hence, it would be impossible to plead the dates of such transgressions with any more specificity than has already been done. The test of specificity is whether or not the complaint puts the defendant on notice of the facts which he has to refute: Line Lexington Lumber & Millwork Co., Inc. v. Pennsylvania Publishing Corp., 451 Pa. 154, 301 A. 2d 684 (1973). As we find that plaintiffs’ complaint satisfies this rule’s requirement, we will dismiss the motion for a more specific complaint as being devoid of merit.

Secondly, we are faced with the question of defendant’s demurrer based on the bar of a non-waivable statute of limitations. Again, as we have read the complaint of plaintiffs to allege continuing trespasses on the part of defendant, we must conclude that, at least on the face of the complaint, it has not been established that claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

In fight of the foregoing, we enter the following

ORDER

And now, November 14, 1979, the preliminary objections of defendant are dismissed. Defendant is given 20 days from date to file an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint.
Exhibit 4.59



 


This is an English translation


 


Supplementary Agreement to the Technology
Development Agreement

with respect to Advertisement Union Agency Management Information System


 


This agreement is made and entered into by and among:


 


	Principal: 	Beijing Qihu Technology Company Limited (“Party A”)
	 	 
	Grantor: 	Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (“Party B”)
	 	 
	Execution Venue:	Chaoyang District, Beijing
	 	 
	Execution Date: 	January 1, 2011





 


WHEREAS,


 


		1.	Party A and Party B entered into Technology Development Agreement on December 1, 2012 (“ Original Agreement ”);



 


		2.	Due to the business development of Party A, it is necessary to modify certain provisions of the Original Agreement in relation
to price, payment and payment method;



 


		3.	Party B agrees to make such amendments.



  


 NOW, THEREFORE, through friendly
negotiation, both parties hereby voluntarily reach the agreement with respect to the following amendments to the Original Agreement:


 


Article One: Price, payment and payment method related
provisions under Clause 8 of the Original Agreement are amended as follows:


 


		1.	From January 2011, Party A shall issue the invoice prior to the 25th day of every month to confirm with Party B
the technology development fee payable to Party B in the said month. Both parties shall reach an agreement on the amount by the
end of each month.



 


		2.	Payment Method: through check and bank remittance.



 


		3.	Payment time: Party A shall make the full payment to Party B in one lump sum every month on the amount confirmed by both Parties.
To be more specific, prior to the 15th day of every month, Party A shall pay the technology development fee of the preceding
month to Party B according the relevant provisions of the Original Agreement.



 


Article Two: Other provisions and appendix of the Original
Agreement shall remain unchanged and still be effective.


 


Article Three: This agreement shall become effective
as of being executed by the legal representative or authorized representative of both parties.


 


	Party A: Beijing Qihu Technology Company Limited
	 	 
	(Chop): 	/s/ [Company Stamp of Beijing Qihu Technology Company Limited]
	Legal Representative / Authorized Representative:
	 	 
	Party B: Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
	 	 
	 (Chop):	/s/ [Company Stamp of Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd.]
December 12, 2014

Mr. Terrell Scott

500 South Highland Ave.

Midwest City, OK 73110

Dear Mr. Scott:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 65.75(b) and 65.79, of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why 

we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your December 5, 2014, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA2014-1013), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent 

does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). Additionally, while your

petition requests relief from §§ 65.75(b) and 65.79 requirements, relief described in your 

petition is actually required from 14 CFR § 65.71(a).

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us the following information 

indicated below:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

 If applicable, the specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your 

exemption outside the United States. 
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open during 

this period. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at 

least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

You may submit the additional information to the FAA through the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal Docket Management System Web site using the 

public docket number assigned to your petition. Paper submission should be sent to this 

address: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Also, for additional 

instructions, you may visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may e-mail the analyst 

working your petition, Mr. Alphonso Pendergrass @ alphonso.pendergrass@faa.gov, or call 

(202) 267-4713. 

Sincerely,

/s/

James M. Crotty

Manager, Aircraft and Airport Rules Division

Enclosure

§ 11.81
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors
Pinnacle Bancshares, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-35603 and 333-85441 on Form S-8) of Pinancle Bancshares, Inc. of our
report dated March 14, 2003, with respect to the consolidated statement of
financial condition of Pinancle Bancshares, Inc. as of December 31, 2002, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31,
2002, annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pinnacle Bancshares, Inc.

Our report refers to our audit of the adjustments that were applied to certain
transitional disclosures required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, to revise the 2001 consolidated
financial statements, as more fully described in note 1 to the consolidated
financial statements. However, we were not engaged to audit, review or apply any
procedures to the 2001 consolidated financial statements other than with respect
to such disclosures.

                                                /s/ KPMG LLP
Birmingham, Alabama
March 28, 2003
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 1, 2016

No. 04-16-00662-CV

Melissa FUENTES, Individually, and as Next Friend of Victor Robert Fuentes and Isabella 

Elaine Fuentes, Minor Plaintiffs,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.,

Appellee

From the 112th Judicial District Court, Sutton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5910

Honorable Pedro Gomez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The original clerk’s record showed a summary judgment order signed on May 18, 2016. 

Based on that order, it appeared that Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

On November 17, 2016, we ordered Appellant to file a written response to show cause 

why this court has jurisdiction in this appeal. A supplemental clerk’s record was timely filed

which includes a final judgment signed on July 12, 2016. 

Given this additional information, we conclude the August 11, 2016 motion for new trial 

was timely filed, it extended the deadline to file the notice of appeal, the October 10, 2016 notice 

of appeal was timely, and we have jurisdiction in this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. 

Our November 17, 2016 show cause order is satisfied. We reinstate the appellate 

timetable. Appellant’s brief is due on December 28, 2016.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 1st day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
# C_2015288EN.01000101.xml

| 2.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7720 — Mahindra World City Developers/Sumitomo/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 288/01)

On 26 August 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7720. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7720. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
{"id":12711,"count":45,"description":"A journey to the stars doesn\u2019t just begin at the launchpad. Discover new worlds through epic stories told by scientists on missions to outer space.","link":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/podcasts\/on-a-mission\/","name":"On a Mission","slug":"on-a-mission","taxonomy":"series","meta":[],"rss_feeds":{"spotify":"https:\/\/open.spotify.com\/show\/7GXvFFgP6EUXH9FOhpsasJ","apple":"https:\/\/podcasts.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/on-a-mission\/id1439209054?mt=2","google":"https:\/\/podcasts.google.com\/feed\/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubmFzYS5nb3YvcnNzL2R5bi9Pbi1hLU1pc3Npb24ucnNz?sa=X&ved=0CBcQ27cFahcKEwj4mt6W4O7sAhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQEw","soundcloud":"https:\/\/soundcloud.com\/nasa\/sets\/on-a-mission","drupal":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/rss\/dyn\/On-a-Mission.rss","native":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/feeds\/podcasts\/on-a-mission"},"endpoint":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series\/12711","exclude_from_main":false,"featured_media":406904,"featured_image":{"file":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/onamissionblue2021-1400x1400-1.jpg","alt":"The cover art for the "On a Mission" podcast"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series\/12711"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/taxonomies\/series"}],"wp:post_type":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/podcast?series=12711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Exhibit31.2

Rule 13a - 14(a) / 15a -
14(a)Certification of Chief Financial Officer




I, Donald T. Locke, certify
that:

1.            
I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2005, of Summus, Inc.  (“Summus”);

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 Summus as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report.

4.            
Summus’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Summus 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 Summus, 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)              
Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles.

(c)               
Evaluated the effectiveness of Summus’ disclosure control’s 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

(d)               
Disclosed in this report any change in Summus’ internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during Summus’ most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Summus’
internal control over financial reporting; and

5.            
Summus’ other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Summus’ auditors and
the audit committee of Summus’ board of directors:

(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 Summus’ 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 Summus’ internal control over financial
reporting.



Date:    May 13,
2005

/s/ Donald T.
LockeDonald T. LockeChief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40702

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

PHILLIP ROBINETTE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-70-10

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The attorney appointed to represent Phillip Robinette has moved for leave

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Robinette has filed a response. The record is insufficiently developed to allow

consideration at this time of Robinette’s claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). We

have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 8, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-40702 Document: 00511501846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2011
No. 10-40702

therein, as well as Robinette’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment

that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly,

the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 10-40702 Document: 00511501846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2011
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17446-17447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; Review of Alcohol Health 
Disparity Research Centers.
    Date: April 28, 2015.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: NIAAA, NIH, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, 
(Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Ranga Srinivas, Ph.D., Chief, Extramural Project 
Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 
NIH, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 2085, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 443-
2067, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a19180304031c0b182a070b030644040302440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e2d2c373037283f2c1e333f37327030373670393128">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 92.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants;

[[Page 17447]]

93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Supports 
Awards, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 26, 2015.
Melanie J. Gray,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-07343 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Capella Education Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Kevin Gilligan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ J. Kevin Gilligan  
|J. Kevin Gilligan      
|Chief Executive Officer
|April 27, 2010         

This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent
that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed November 30, 2016.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-16-01271-CV

IN RE METHODIST HOSPITALS OF DALLAS 

D/B/A METHODIST RICHARDSON MEDICAL CENTER, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 4

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 004-01349-2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Stoddart

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Before the Court is relator’s November 21, 2016 motion to dismiss for mootness in which 

relator states that the issue raised in this original proceeding has been resolved by a subsequent 

trial court order and is now moot. We grant the motion, lift the Court’s October 26, 2016 order 

staying the trial court’s October 20, 2016 order compelling appellant to respond to plaintiff’s 

interrogatory no. 5, and dismiss this original proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a).

161271F.P05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE