alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The Rector, etc., of Holy Trinity Church of Harlem, Etc., App’lt., *v.*The Rector, etc., of the Church of St. Stephen and James Blackhurst, etc., Resp’ts. The People *ex rel.*The Rector, etc., of the Church of St. Stephen, App'lt, *v.*James Blackhurst, as Treasurer, etc., Charles E. Fleming *et al.,*Respt’s.

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed June 23, 1891.)*

Appeal—Court oe appeals—Withdrawal oe appeal.

Where the wardens and vestrymen of a religious corporation have authorized the withdrawal of an appeal to this court through attorneys named for that purpose, the objection of an attorney who has previously acted for the corporation under a previous management, cannot avail as against the desire of the corporation where he has ceased to represent it.

Application by appellant to withdraw appeal from judgment of supreme court, general term, first department

*Wager*Swayne, for app’lt; *Wm. H. Hamilton,*for resp’ts.

*920Gray, J.

The motions upon the petitions for the withdrawal on the above entitled appeals should be granted.

The objections of Andrew J. Shipman, who has claimed to be attorney for the corporation of the church of St. Stephen, cannot avail against the desire of that corporation as expressed by the vestry. The wardens and vestrymen elected at the Easter election, 1891, represent the corporation appellant in the above action and proceeding, and they have authorized the motions now made through attorneys named for that purpose. To permit the appeals to continue to be prosecuted would be to deny the right to an appellant to discontinue litigation ; with no other reason than to gratify the wishes of an attorney who, whatever the foundation of his original authority to appear, has ceased to represent the litigant. There is nothing in the procedure which is objectionable, and we see no reason for denying the appellants’ applications.

There will be no costs awarded to any of the parties as against the other, except ten dollars costs of each of the two motions against the attorney Shipman in favor of the corporation of the church of St. Stephen.

All concur, except Finch, J., absent.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-30252

_____________________

KENNETH B. MATHIEU,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-2709-D)

_________________________________________________________________
October 30, 1996

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JOLLY, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Kenn eth B. Mathieu (“Mathieu”) sued UNUM Life

Insurance Company of America (“UNUM”) to recover payments that UNUM

withheld to offset Social Security disability payments that Mathieu

also received. According to its policy, UNUM is entitled to offset

against its own payments any Social Securi ty disability payments

received by a covered employee if those payments are payable “as a

result of the same disability.” Mathieu insists that because theSocial Security hearing examiner considered b oth Mathieu’s prior

back injury and his more recent heart attack, the payments are not

based on the “sam e disability” and UNUM may not offset. The

dis trict court concluded that Mathieu had applied for Social

Security disability on the basis of his heart condition, and that

the hearing exa miner focused primarily upon the medical

restrictions caused by t he heart condition. The district court

therefore found that Mathieu’s heart condition was “the crux” of

both awards, and granted summary judgment for UNUM. Mathieu

appeals this decision.

We have reviewed the briefs and arguments and we conclude that

the district court correctly assessed the facts and the terms of

the insurance contract. Both the UNUM payment and the Social

Security disability payment are payable “as a result of” Mathieu’s

heart condition. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is

A F F I R M E D.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Sigmund Wechsler, Deceased. Stella Wechsler, Appellant; Irving Trust Company, as Trustee, et al., Respondents.

Argued May 27, 1943;

decided December 8, 1943.

*760
      *Helen L. Buttenwieser*for appellant.

*Forrest M. Anderson, Raymond M. White*and *Norman B. Murphy*for Irving Trust Company, as trustee, respondent.

Order affirmed with costs to the trustee-respondent, payable , out of the estate; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Lohghban, Rippet, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ.
#### WOMACK v. THE STATE.

Appeal from Eratfa county.

*Confessions*— As affecting confessions, the general rule is, and it is applicable to all cases, that the confessions shall have been volun tarily made without the appliances of hope or fear by any other person. The accused having agreed to turn State’s evidence against a confederate, and detailed matters which tended to connect himself with the offense, subsequently refused to testify against his confederate and repudiated his agreement with district attorney and denied that he made the statements imputed to him by the district attorney and the witness H. The witness H. was permitted to testify *127to the statements. Held: That the test was, was the accused induced to snake the statement by promise or hope of immunity held ou¡ to him by H. as the testimony shows? If so, no bad faith on the part of accused will qualify witness H. to detail his statements before, the jury. Again, even had it been proper to admit this evidence, it and the other evidence was insufficient to show a guilty complicity of the accused in the taking. Reversed and remanded.

Opinion by

White, P, J.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Respondent, against Joseph Lilly et al., Constituting the Tax Commission of the *City*of New York, et al., Appellants.

Argued May 17, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*601
      *Robert H. Schaffer, Acting Corporation Counsel (Arthur A. Segall, Arthur E. Goldberg*and *Edmund B. Eennefeld*of counsel), for appellants.

*Philip Sheridan McNally*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.*

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher, J.

See footnote in *People ex rel. Chemical National Bank*v. *Miller,*291 N. Y. 508.— [Rep.
[LETTERHEAD OF WATTS, GRIFFIS AND MCOUAT LIMITED]

EXHIBIT 23.4

March 30, 2007

LETTER OF CONSENT

Lundin Mining Corporation

I, Stephen B. Cheeseman, refer to the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Lundin Mining Corporation dated April 2, 2007 (including all exhibits, the "Annual Report").

I hereby consent to the use of the Watts, Griffis and McOuat Limited report titled A Technical Review of the Galmoy Mine and Prospecting Licences Held by Arcon in the Irish Midlands-Republic of Ireland for Lundin Mining Corporation, dated April 22, 2005, and the report title A Technical Review of the Zinkgruvan mine in South-Central Sweden for South Atlantic Ventures dated March 13, 2004, of which I am an author, and the appearance of my name in the Annual Report.

Yours very truly,

/s/  Stephen B. Cheeseman



Per:

Stephen B. Cheeseman, B. Sc., P. Geo.

MK/ls

Dated:  March 30, 2007

---
### A project of the Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions and the San Francisco Estuary Institute Produced with support from: Home Pacific Coast Exotic Species Use of Images Contact Us Brown Seaweeds Sponges The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/ 1 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM

### Anemones The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/ 2 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM

### Worms The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/ 3 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM

### Snails The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/ 4 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PMThe Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/ 5 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM

### Clams, Mussels, etc. The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/ 6 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM

### Barnacles, Crabs, Etc. The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/ 7 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM

### Moss Animals The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/ 8 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PMThe Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/ 9 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM

### Sea Squirts The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/ 10 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM

### Cite this Guide as : Cohen, Andrew N. 2011. The Exotics Guide: Non-native Marine Species of the North American Pacific Coast . Center for Research on Aquatic Bioi nvasions, Richmond, CA, and San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA. Revised September 2011. http://www.exoticsguide.org The Exotics Guide http://www.exoticsguide.org/ 11 of 11 4/20/2016 3:12 PM
#### Pocket Books, Inc., Respondent, *v.*Joseph Meyers et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name of Avon Pocket-Size Books, et al., Appellants.

Argued April 13, 1943;

reargument ordered July 20, 1943.

*507
      *Joseph M. Proskauer, J. Alvin Van Bergh*and *Louis P. Eisner*for appellants.

*Harold R. Medina, Douglas M. Black, Edward K. Hanlon*and *John W. Jordan*for respondent.

Reargument ordered and argument set for first week in October next. No opinion. (See 292 N. Y. 59.)

Concur: Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Lehman, Ch. J.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Carlos TORRES-PALOS, also known as Juan Torrez, also known as Jose Hernandez-Perez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41059 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Carlos Torres-Palos, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Torres-Palos has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Torres-Palos has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Torres-Palos’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cib. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

   Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                           to
                  Certificateholders

                                                                      Ending
Class          Interest         Principal        Losses              Balance
<S>              <C>               <C>             <C>                 <C>
A1             680362.64                0                0          137216000
A10             33806.99          5425798                0          584334.88
A2               1208520                0                0          241704000
A3               3198580                0                0          619080000
A4            4912954.86      10893929.47                0       979954110.79
A5             849454.91       1778928.66                0       160022005.02
A6            5247639.95      -4000111.92                0       715131118.31
A7              58744.51        -58744.51                0         10502212.4
A8             331905.59        4178072.4                0        59915482.27
A9              95384.78        773717.08                0        11095459.27
ALR               593.21              100                0                  0
APO                    0          61817.7                0        30881218.57
AR                  0.56              100                0                  0
B1             412892.59         61642.95                0        73341484.68
B2             125680.52         18763.51                0         22324440.2
B3              53843.84          8038.64                0         9564201.45
B4              53888.72          8045.36                0         9572171.61
B5              30511.53          4555.23                0         5419714.16
B6              41310.71          5654.61           512.89         7337958.61


</TABLE>
Order entered May 20, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01670-CV

D&J REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. 

D/B/A RE/MAX PREMIER GROUP, ET AL., Appellants

V.

GREG L. PERKINS, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-00559-2011

ORDER

We DENY appellees/cross-appellants’ May 9, 2014 motion for reconsideration of their 

agreed first motion for an extension of time to file a cross-appellant’s brief. Appellants filed 

their brief on May 16, 2014. Accordingly, appellees’ combined appellees’ and cross-appellants’ 

brief is due on Monday June 16, 2014. See 5th Tex. App. (Dallas) Loc. R. 10(3)(b).

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 22, 2019

.

________________

Nos. 3D18-208 & 3D18-629

Lower Tribunal No. 14-4053

________________



### GEICO Indemnity Company and GEICO General Insurance

Company

, Appellants,

vs.



### Ricardo Perez and Luz Perez

, etc.,

Appellees.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rodney Smith

, Judge.

Shutts & Bowen LLP, and Suzanne Youmans Labrit, B.C.S. (Tampa) and

Amy M. Wessel (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants.

The Powell Law Firm, P.A., and Brett C. Powell ; Silverstein, Silverstein &

Silverstein, P.A., for appellees.

Before FERNANDEZ, LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ.

CONFESSION OF ERRORHENDON, J.

As the appellees properly concede, the attorney’s fees and costs judgments

at issue in these consolidated appeals must be reversed. In GEICO Indemnity Co.

v. Perez

, 260 So. 3d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), this Court reversed the underlying

final judgment as to uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage and remanded for a

new trial. Therefore, the attorney’s fees and costs judgments that were predicated

on the reversed final judgment cannot stand. See City of Hollywood v. Witt

, 939

So. 2d 315, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (recognizing that “where an award of

attorney’s fees is dependent upon the judgment obtained, the reversal of the

underlying judgment necessitates the reversal of the fee award”); Marty v. Bainter

,

727 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“Once a final judgment is reversed

and remanded by an appellate court, there can be no prevailing party for purposes

of an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees. Consequently, an award of

attorney’s fees and costs predicated on a reversed or vacated final judgment also

must be reversed”).

Reversed.

2
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING
FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements of DropCar, Inc. on Form S3 (Nos. 333-136618,
333-140546, 333-142846, 333-146106, 333-149788, 333-165927,
333-207205, 333-215729, 333-217768, 333-224300, and 333-227858) and
Form S8 (No. 333-128488, 333-158232, 333-216145, and 333-225790) of
our report dated April 1, 2019, on our audits of the consolidated
financial statements as of December 31, 2018 and 2017 and for each
of the years then ended, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K. Our report includes an explanatory paragraph
about the existence of substantial doubt concerning the Company's
ability to continue as a going concern.








/s/ EisnerAmper LLP








EISNERAMPER LLP


New York, New York


April 1, 2019
Exhibit 32(b)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q

OF PINNACLE
DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2006

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the Issuer). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certification accompanies the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006.

I, George A. Troutman, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

This
certification is executed as of August 11, 2006.



/s/ George A. TroutmanChief Financial Officer
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Meeting Documentation: Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) Date Staff Contact Information 

(Name, email, phone #) 

Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, 

reporting requirements, etc.)

WrittComProvDid tsubmDock

May 19, 2010 Kirsten Cappel 

(202) 343-9556 cappel.kirsten@epa.gov

• Outside participants identified below. • EPA Climate Change Division and EPA contractors: Kirsten Cappel, EPA; Scott Bartos, EPA; Deborah Ottinger, EPA; Deb Harris, ICF 

International; Jeremy Scharfenberg, ICF International.

Participants discussed their comments on the proposed rule, Electronics Manufacturing (subpart I). Highlighted concerns included: gas consumption tracking; burden and cost of apportioning gas consumption to separate process categories; uncertainty analysis doesn’t support using 9 process categories over Tier 2b emission factors; POU abatement characterization and tracking requirements vs. DRE of 60%; underestimated compliance costs; and information on gas emissions for separate processes categories is highly sensitive. All PowerPoint Presentations provided at meetings are included in the docket. 

SIA comthe d

Outside Participants: Julie Hatcher, Latham and Watkins, julia.hatcher@lw.com; Laura Mendicino, Freescale, laura.mendicino@freesCynthia Johnson, TI, ckjohnson@TI.com; Tom Diamond, SIA, tdiamond@sia-online.org; Reed Content, Global Laurie Beu, Consultant to ISMI, Laurie.Beu@ismi.sematech.org; Stephen Harper, Intel, stephen.harper@intel.co

Tim Higgs, Intel, tim.g.higgs@intel.com; Bob Hearn, Micron, whearn@micron.com; Jeff Davidson, Analog Dev

Brewer, Latham and Watkins, matthew.brewer@lw.com; On the telephone: Tim Yeakley, TI, t-yeakley@ti.com; Tina Gilliland, TI; and Jay Dietrich, IBM, jdietric@us.ibm

1
---

Exhibit 13.2

|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 Micromem Technologies
Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 2017
(the Report), I, Dan Amadori, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, based on 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 result of operations
      of the Company.

|Date: March 12, 2018 | /s/
      Dan Amadori        
|-------------------- | -----------------------------
|                     | Dan Amadori                  
|                     | Chief Financial Officer      
|                     | (Principal financial officer)

---
PaulGretchDirector,OfficeofInternationalAviationU.S.DepartmentofTransportation1200NewJerseyAvenueS.E.Washington,DC20590U.S.ADearMr.Gretch,Referringtotheletterof18September2014frommycolleague,KristinaMosbcek,andunderstandingthataformalrenewalofthestatementinthesaidletterisnecessary,pleasenotethefollowing:InreferencetotheintentionsofthetwoDanishaircarriersAirAlsieA/SandExecuJetEuropeA/S,respectively,toconductnon-scheduled(charter)airservicestoandfromtheUnitedStates,theDanishTransportAuthorityherebydeclaresthatitwillconsiderapplicationsbyU.S.aircarriersforapprovaltooperatenon-scheduled(charter)airservicestoandfromDenmarkinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheAirTransportAgreementbetweentheEuropeanCommunityanditsMemberStatesandtheUnitedStatesofAmericaofApril2007,asamended,and,forthosecharteroperationsnotspecifiedintheAgreement,onthebasisofcomityandreciprocity.Yourssincerely,AndreasH.KavalarisHeadofSectionPage1(1)EdvardThomsensVej14DK-2300CopenhagenSPhone+4572218800Fax+4572218888info@trafikstyrelsen.dkwww.trafikstyrelsen.dkOurref.:TS30200-00017Date:19February2015
#### Homer P. Hand, Appellant and Respondent, v. Henry B. Boland et al., Individually and as Copartners Doing Business as H. B. Boland & Company, Respondents and Appellants.

Argued June 9, 1943;

decided October 14, 1943.

*John T. Trimble*for defendants, appellants and respondents.

*Noah Feldman*for plaintiff, respondent and appellant.

*652Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Eippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thachee, JJ.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas EmissionsMeeting DocumentationDateStaffContactInformation(Name, email,phone #)Name of Organization (Attachlist of all attendees names andemails if possible)Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability,reporting requirements, etc.)WrittenCommentsProvided?Did they alsosubmit toDocket?Date sent toEPA- CCD6/14/10EmailCorrespondenceCaroline Cochran,ICF International,ccochran@icfi.com202-862-1143on behalf of EPAunder Contract EPW-07-068, TaskOrder 68Mike JeffsISOPAmike.jeffs10@googlemail.com1.Could you provide any insight on themagnitude of imports vs. exports in theU.S.? (e.g., imports 2x greater thanexports?)There is a lot of manufacturing of domesticrefrigerators and freezers in Mexico for importinto the US. Manufacturers such as GE andWhirlpool have facilities in Mexico. Some usepentane-based foam technology. I believe thatthe local Mexican producer Mabe also exports tothe US. Some units may be re-exported toCanada or be delivered there directly ex Mexico.Some large refrigeratorsare exported to the EU,although this is probably a small number.I would guess that in this product area thatimports exceed export by about 5:1Trade in building products such as sandwichpanels is probably limited to a low level fromMexican producers in Monterray to the SouthernUS.2. Regarding packaging foam: couldyou provide any insight on the types offoams that are typically used for packagingand whether these foams are open- orclosed-cell? We know that Polyolefin andXPS foams can both be used for packaging,and that both of theseare closed-cell foams;N/AN/Ahowever, a commenter on the proposed rulementioned that somepackaging foams areopen-cell, and we’d like to confirm thisstatement.Regarding packaging foams - this is a broad field- There are uses of flexible open celled foam forpackaging of high value goods (electronics, etc.).Rigid PU foams are also injected around articles(including armaments) and high closed cellcontents is not necessary.