alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 30, 2012 

d0123 

Order 

 

January 30, 2012 

143351(39) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143351 

 COA: 297755 

Ingham CC: 09-001162-FC 

ANTONIO MARCUS VASQUEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s October 24, 

2011 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
#### Julia Sharp et al., Respondents, v Mike Rob, Doing Business as Fun City Shows, et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[773 NYS2d 704]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Nelson H. Cosgrove, J.), entered October 21, 2002. The judgment awarded plaintiffs damages in the amount of $297,200, plus costs and disbursements, upon a jury verdict, in a personal injury action.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, the verdict is set aside and a new trial is granted.

Memorandum: Julia Sharp (plaintiff) injured her coccyx when *1084she and her daughter slid down a carnival slide operated by defendants. Plaintiffs commenced this negligence action alleging that defendants negligently erected, maintained and operated the carnival slide and, following a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs, awarding them damages of approximately $299,000. We agree with defendants that Supreme Court should have granted their motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial based on the court’s error in charging the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Because the slide was subject to “extensive public contact,” plaintiffs did not establish that defendants had the requisite exclusive control over it to establish their entitlement to the charge *(Ebanks v New York City Tr. Auth., 70*NY2d 621, 623 [1987]). Furthermore, the injuries sustained by plaintiff could have been caused by her “voluntary action” of sliding with her 30- to 35-pound daughter on her lap while seated in an upright position *(Kambat v St. Francis Hosp.,*89 NY2d 489, 494 [1997]; *see Pappalardo v New York Health & Racquet Club,*279 AD2d 134, 142-143 [2000]; *Cacciolo v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*186 AD2d 528, 529 [1992]). In light of our determination, we do not address defendants’ remaining contentions. Present—Pine, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OLXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of SPACEHAB, Incorporated (the Company) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the report), I, Brian K. Harrington, Chief 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 to my knowledge:



(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/ Brian K. Harrington              
|Brian K. Harrington, Senior Vice     
|President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                     
|September 27, 2004                   



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely to accompany the report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman

Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner Toby Baker, Commissioner Zak Covar , Executive Director



## T EXAS 

## C OMMISSION ON 

## E NVIRONMENTAL 

## Q UALITY

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711

- 3087 • 512 - 239 - 1000 • tceq.texas.gov

How is our customer service? tceq.texas.gov/customersurvey printed on recycled paper June 14, 2012 MR DANIEL GAGNE MANUFACTURING PROGRAMS ENGINEER PPG INDUSTRIES INC 7400 CENTRAL FWY N WICHITA FALLS TX 76305
- 6656
Re: Permit Alteration Permit Number : 898 Flat Glass Manufacturing Facility Wichita Falls, Wichita County Regulated Entity Nu mber: RN102522950 Customer Reference Number: CN600124614 Account Number: WH

- 0040 - R Dear Mr. Gagne : This is in response to your letter received May 16, 2012 , requesting alteration of the maximum allowable emission rates table (MAERT) of the above

- refe renced permit. We understand you are requesting that Air Quality Standard Permit for Pollution Control Project No. 103006 be incorporated by reference into your permit
. As indicated in Title 30 Texas Administrative Code § 116.116(c) [30 TAC § 116.116(c)] , and based on our review, Permit Number 898 is altered. Enclosed is the altered MAERT to replace the one currently attached to your permit. Please attach it to your permit. No planned maintenance, startup, and shutdown emissions have been reviewed or r epresented in this application and none are authorized by this permit. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. If you need further information or have any questions, please contact Mr. Bill Moody, P.E. at (512) 239

- 1859 or write to the Texas Comm ission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air , Air Permits Division, MC

- 163 , P.O. Box 1 3087, Austin, Texas 78711

- 3087.Mr. Daniel Gagne

Page 2 June 14, 2012 Re: Permit Number : 898 This action is taken under authority delegated by the Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Sincerely,

Michael Wilson, P.E., Director Air Permits Division Office of Air Texas Commission on Environmental Quality MPW/ wm Enclosure
cc : General Environmental Administrator, Environmental Health, Wichita Falls

-Wichita County Public Health District, Wichita Falls Air Section Manager, Region 3

- Abilene Project Number: 178473
##### 



UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 10-K/A
 (Amendment No. 2)
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005
 OR
 o
    
    TRANSITIONAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from  to
 Commission File No.: 0-27338
 ATARI, INC.
 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 Delaware
    
    13-3689915(State or Other Jurisdiction of
    
    (I.R.S. EmployerIncorporation or Organization)
    
    Identification No.)
 417 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016
 Registrants telephone number, including area code: (212) 726-6500
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock, $0.01 par value
 x o
 o
 x o
  Documents Incorporated by Reference




---



##### 



EXPLANATORY NOTE




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  ATARI, INC.By:
    /s/ Bruno BonnellName:
    Bruno BonnellTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibits31.1
    
    Chief Executive Officer Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.31.2
    
    Chief Financial Officer Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.32.1
    
    Certification by the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.32.2
    
    Certification by the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.99.2 
    
    Amendment to the Xbox® Publisher Licensing Agreement, dated March 1, 2005.
 
 
    
    Portions of this exhibit have been redacted pursuant to a confidential treatment request filed
with the SEC.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:17erl35
vs.
JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
KEVIN MCCLESKEY,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
AMEND HIS PRESENTENCE REPORT; ADDENDUM TO PRESENTENCE
REPORT

Defendant, Kevin A. McCleskey, having previously been sentenced by this Court, has
filed a motion asking this Court to amend his Presentence Report. For reasons set forth below,
this Court overrules said motion to amend Presentence Report, and, instead, files the following
addendum to same.

In the Presentence Report, on page 23 at paragraph 92, the Investigator preparing said
Presentence Report set forth the following: “McCleskey reported first trying alcohol at age 29.
He denied ever using alcohol on a regular basis and stated he does not feel he has a problem with
alcohol. . . .” Defendant has asked that this Court amend said paragraph 92 to reflect the
following: “McCleskey reported first trying alcohol at age 29. He used alcohol on a regular basis
up until his arrest in September, 2017, but stated that he does not feel he has a problem with
alcohol.”

Following a telephone conference call convened by the Court with counsel of record and


United States Probation Officer, Charles Steed, Mr. Steed has consulted his notes and affirms
that the objected-to portion of the Presentence Report is accurate, as a reflection of what
Defendant related to him during the interview conducted in aid of the Presentence Report.
However, in fairness to Mr. McCleskey, while this Court will not order the Presentence Report
amended, it will state that Mr. McCleskey’s position is that “he used alcohol on a regular basis

up until his arrest in September, 2017, but stated he does not feel he has a problem with alcohol.”

prongs

April 4, 2018 WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of record

Records Section, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 129, Lisbon, OH 44432

Kevin McCleskey, Register No. 7106-061, FCI Elkton, Federal Correctional Institution,
P.O. Box 10., Lisbon OH 44432
#### Hurst *v.*Davies.

Opinion delivered March 7, 1927.

Judgment — default—proof of cause of action. — It was error to render judgment for plaintiff , on an open account not sworn to, without proof of its correctness, though defendant refused to go to trial where his case was called.

Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; *W. A. Dickson,*Judge;

modified.

*W. N. Ivie,*for appellant.

HumphREys, J.

Appellee, instituted suit against appellant in the circuit court of Washington County for an alleged balance of $227.90 due on a note, and an alleged balance of $338.33 due on an open account. Neither the complaint nor the account was sworn to.

On the 26th day of October following, being the first day of the October term of said court, appellant was *37given until November 2, 1925, to file an answer, on which date he filed a duly verified answer, admitting that he owed the alleged balance upon the note, and the balance of $84.22 upon the open account, but denying specifically that he was indebted for items charged on 'the open account up to January 26, 1925, totaling $215.11, and alleging that he was entitled to a total credit of $80 on the undenied part of the account for attorney’s fees for representing appellee in three cases.

On the 13th day of November, 1925, the case was called for trial, whereupon appellant announced that he could not go to trial on account of the absence of his attorney, who had been excused by the court, and because his papers were locked up where he could not get them. The court refused to postpone the case until a later date, either at the regular or adjourned term of the court, and rendered judgment, over appellant’s objection and exception, on the presentation of the note and without hearing any evidence on the disputed items of the account and credit claimed thereon.

On the 8th day of December, 1925, which was an adjourned date of the October term of court, appellant filed a motion to set the judgment aside on the ground that it was prematurely rendered. The court overruled the motion, whereupon an appeal was duly prosecuted to this court from the judgment.

The trial, court committed reversible error in rendering judgment upon the open account without any proof being introduced of its correctness, even though appellant refused to go to trial when the case was called. The answer, however, admitted the alleged indebtedness on the note and a balance of $84.22 on the account. If appellee will enter a remittitur within 15 days so as to reduce the judgment to the amount of the admitted indebtedness, the judgment will be modified and affirmed as modified; otherwise it will be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information  extracted from the Balance
Sheets for PINNACLE PROPERTY GROUP, INC. at November 30, 2000 (unaudited) and
the Statement of Operations for the nine month period ended  November 30, 2000
(unaudited) and is qualified  in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,177
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,177
<PP&E>                                           6,120
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (2,040)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              579
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           465
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,213
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,257
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (15,196)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (15,196)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15,196)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,196)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)








</TABLE>
<PAGE>




Exhibit 32.1

         Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Sec. 906

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Debt Resolve, Inc.(the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James D.
Burchetta, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

2.   Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 5, 2004                       /s/ JAMES D. BURCHETTA
                                        ------------------------------
                                            James D. Burchetta
                                            Chief Executive Officer

         Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Sec. 906

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Debt Resolve, Inc.(the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M. Porta,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

     2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.

Date: May 5, 2004                       /s/ JOHN M. PORTA
                                        -------------------------------
                                            John M. Porta
                                            Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

JATOYA D. BOSTOCK,

Plaintiff,

Vv. . Case No. 3:17-cv-325
WESTLAKE FINANCIAL JUDGE WALTER H. RICE
SOLUTIONS LLC, et a/.,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #39);
SUSTAINING IN PART DEFENDANT WESTLAKE FINANCIAL
SOLUTIONS LLC’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
(DOC. #36); DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE FDCPA CLAIMS
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS; DECLINING TO EXERCISE
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER STATE LAW CLAIMS;
JUDGMENT TO BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS AND
AGAINST PLAINTIFF; TERMINATION ENTRY

Based on the reasoning and citations of authority set forth by United States
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington in her Report and Recommendations, Doc.
#39, as well as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court’s file and the
applicable law, the Court ADOPTS said judicial filing in its entirety. Although the
parties were notified of their right to file Objections to the Report and
Recommendations, and of the consequences of failing to do so, no Objections have

been filed within the time allotted.


Accordingly, Defendant Westlake Financial Solutions, LLC’s unopposed
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Doc. #36, is SUSTAINED IN PART. The
Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”) claims against both Westlake and Relentless Towing. Having dismissed
all federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
state law claims and DISMISSES them WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing in state
court.

Judgment shall be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.

The captioned case is hereby ordered terminated upon the docket records of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division,

at Dayton.

Date: March 22, 2019 LF ntentploas,
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-K/A of Tollgrade Communications, Inc.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; and3.
    
    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.
  /s/ GARY W. BOGATAY, JR.Name:
    Gary W. Bogatay, Jr.Title:
    Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
TradeOn Inc.: Exhibit 10.5 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com











Exhibit 10.5 


Undertaking the Guaranty Obligations Pre-maturity Covenants between the Parties


Dispute Resolution Validity Acknowledgments by the Guarantors 

Summary of Guaranty Contract 


Undertaking the Guaranty Obligations Pre-maturity Covenants between the Parties Dispute Resolution Validity Acknowledgments by the Guarantors Summary of Guaranty Contract (the “Contract”) entered into
by and between Changzhou Wujin Best Cable Co., Ltd., Wang Kai and Yao Qing (the “Guarantors”) and Jiangsu Wujin Rural Commercial Bank Company limited by Shares (the “Creditor”) on April 6,
2009


Main Contents:


Guaranty Contract Number: 3218862009820006 The Guarantors undertakes to assume joint and several liabilities for Changzhou Wujin Kai Kai Lighting Electronics Co. Ltd. (the “Obligor”)’s indebtedness towards the Creditor under the Loan
Agreement (reference no. 3218862009020006) from the date of effectiveness of the debt by the Obligor and till two years after the maturity of that loan agreement and the amount secured is RMB 3,000,000. 


Guaranty Responsibility: the guaranty under this Contract shall be guaranty with joint and several liabilities. The guarantors are obligated to pay off the debt in the event the obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including the creditor declares
the debt becomes mature in advance by the Creditor under the Loan Agreement or pursuant to law. 


Scope of Guaranty: the guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest, penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages, undertaking fee and all the expense such as litigation cost, lawyer’s fee. 


Guaranty period: the guaranty period is from the effective date of the Contract to two years after the expiration of the performance period under the Loan Agreement.
#### Francis Palms v. Charles *W.*Richardson et al.

*Notice of deposition*— Circuit *court rule 51.*

Where notice is duly given of the filing of a deposition and no motion is made to suppress it nor any objection to it filed, or served on the *85«opposite attorneys, it is too late to question its regularity at tlie hearing.

Error to Alpena. (Emerick, J.)

June 6.

June 20.

'TROVER. Defendants bring error.

Reversed.

*J. B. Clayberg*for appellants.

*J. D. Turnbull*and *Atkinson & Atkinson*for appellee.

Formal objections are not considered when raised for the first time in the appellate court: *Matson v. Melchor*42 Mich. 479.

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff sued defendants in trover for the conversion of certain logs which he had contracted ■should belong to one McElroy when paid for, but which he claimed were not paid for. Judgment passed for defendants.

On the trial a deposition of McElroy was ruled out on the ground that there was a defect in the notice under which it was taken, as not properly signed and as not verified by the person serving it.

But inasmuch as notice of its filing was duly given, and no motion made to suppress, and no objections were filed or served on plaintiff’s attorneys, it was too late to raise the question of its regularity on the hearing. Rule 51 is express on this subject. The question was not only one ,©f form, but a very technical one at best.

The judgment is erroneous for the reasons mentioned, and it must be reversed with costs and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.