alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Dastech International, Inc., Respondent, v F.T.L. International, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[768 NYS2d 635]

*668In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), dated April 22, 2002, which denied their motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof denying those branches of the motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging breach of contract for the sale of goods, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and conversion as time-barred, and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants.

The defendants correctly contend that the plaintiffs causes of action to recover damages for breach of contract for the sale of goods, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and conversion are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations (see Uniform Commercial Code § 2-725 [1], [2]; CPLR 214 [3]). In response, the plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations as to the entity responsible for payment, and their alleged promises to pay, were the cause of the plaintiffs failure to interpose the foregoing causes of action in a timely manner *(see Simcuski v Saeli,*44 NY2d 442 [1978]; *Erlichman v Ventura,*271 AD2d 482 [2000]; *Kiernan v Long Is. R.R.,*209 AD2d 588 [1994]; *Gleason v Spota,*194 AD2d 764 [1993]).

However, the defendants failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the fraud cause of action *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Eagle Comtronics v Pico Prods.,*256 AD2d 1202 [1998]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the fraud cause of action. Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.[See 2002 NY Slip Op 40308(U).]
Exhibit
32.1


Certification
required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(b) and section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  18 U.S.C. Section 1350





I, Tim
Hunt, Chief Executive Officer of HuntMountain Resources, certify
that:





1.           This
report on Form 10-Q/A of HuntMountain Resources 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of HuntMountain
Resources.





Date:
October 7, 2008





/s/
      Tim HuntTim
      Hunt, Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10


Exhibit 10.5 

SAMI

Saudi American Minerals

12508 W. Atlantic Blvd

Coral Springs, FL 33071

Tel 954-575-1471

Fax 954-757-1765




May 1, 2006




Joe Jacobs

Consolidated Energy, Inc.

76 George Rd

Betsy Lane, KY




Dear Mr. Jacobs,




At the request of Consolidated Energy, Inc. Board of Directors, Saudi American Minerals, Inc. has agreed to expedite their option in an agreement dated December 30, 2005.




Under an agreement signed between Consolidated Energy, Inc. and/or CEI Holdings, Inc. and Saudi American Minerals, Inc. signed on December 30, 2005, where SAMI has at its sole discretion the right to cancel the agreement with CEI.




Please be notified by this letter that SAMI has exercised their rights to terminate and declare this Agreement null and void.  Any Agreement that SAMI has with Consolidated Energy, Inc. and/or CEI Holdings, Inc. is hereby cancelled, null and void as of May 1, 2006 per Corporate minutes attached.




Sincerely,




/s/C.J. Douglas

C.J. Douglas




Agreed and accepted




/s/Joseph Jacobs

Joseph Jacobs, Secretary, Consolidated Energy, Inc.
# C_2019408EN.01000601.xml

| 4.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/6

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9608 — ENGIE/CDC/CNR Solaire 10)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 408/05)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | CN’Air (France), controlled by ENGIE (France), |
| --- | --- |

—

CN’Air (France), controlled by ENGIE (France),

| — | Caisse des dépôts et consignations (‘CDC’, France), |
| --- | --- |

—

Caisse des dépôts et consignations (‘CDC’, France),

| — | CNR Solaire 10 (France), controlled by CN’Air (France). |
| --- | --- |

—

CNR Solaire 10 (France), controlled by CN’Air (France).

ENGIE and CDC acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of CNR Solaire 10.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | CDC is a special status public establishment which conducts missions of general interest and activities open to competition, |
| --- | --- |

—

CDC is a special status public establishment which conducts missions of general interest and activities open to competition,

| — | CN’Air is active in the renewable energy sector and a subsidiary of ENGIE which is active in the entire energy value chain in the fields of gas, electricity and energy services, |
| --- | --- |

—

CN’Air is active in the renewable energy sector and a subsidiary of ENGIE which is active in the entire energy value chain in the fields of gas, electricity and energy services,

| — | CNR Solaire 10 is active in the opearation of wind farms in France. |
| --- | --- |

—

CNR Solaire 10 is active in the opearation of wind farms in France.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9608 — ENGIE/CDC/CNR Solaire 10

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
f8k031912ex10ii_europa8.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 


 



RESIGNATION LETTER




 


March 19, 2012







To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of


Europa Acquisition VIII, Inc.







Gentlemen:


 


This letter shall serve as notice that as of the date hereof, I hereby resign from my position as Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, Treasurer and Secretary of Europa Acquisition VIII, Inc. (the “Corporation”).  My resignation is not the result of any disagreement with the Corporation on any matter relating to its operation, policies (including accounting or financial policies) or practices.







 

 


Sincerely,







/s/ Peter Coker


Peter Coker
#### Greater New York Savings Bank, Respondent, v Josefa Sanroman, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[631 NYS2d 74]

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Josefa Sanroman appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated June 27, 1994, which, *inter alia,*found that the plaintiff was entitled to a deficiency judgment, if any, to the extent of any proceeds recovered by her from Merchants Mutual Insurance Company and Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated August 23, 1994, entered upon the decision.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no *784appeal lies from, a decision *(see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and the branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for a deficiency judgment to the extent of any proceeds recovered by the defendant Josefa Sanroman from Merchants Mutual Insurance Company and Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The mortgage note in this case provides, in part, that the plaintiff, as mortgagee, would not seek to enforce any deficiency remaining after the foreclosure of the mortgage. Thus, pursuant to the terms of the mortgage note, the plaintiff relinquished its right to recover a deficiency judgment after it foreclosed the mortgage.

We have examined the parties’ remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Ritter and Florio, JJ., concur.
No. 12-7157.

#### Balthazor *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# L_2010017EN.01002701.xml

| 22.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 17/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 17/27

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 58/2010

of 21 January 2010

granting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008

THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 19 January 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 19 January 2010.

| (3) | The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 19 January 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 22 January 2010.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 January 2010.

For the Commission On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.

3

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1300 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1300

  To amend the Public Health Service Act to unify the reauthorization 
   cycle with respect to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
                   programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 28 (legislative day, June 30), 1993

Mrs. Kassebaum introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
        referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to unify the reauthorization 
   cycle with respect to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
                   programs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``CDC Reauthorization Unification Act 
of 1993''.

SEC. 2. ALIGNMENT OF CURRENT CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 
              REAUTHORIZATION SCHEDULE.

    (a) Lead Poisoning Prevention.--Section 317A(l)(1) of the Public 
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247b-1(l)(1)) is amended by striking 
``through 1997'' and inserting ``and 1995''.
    (b) Prostate Cancer Prevention.--Section 317D(l)(1) of such Act (42 
U.S.C. 247b-5(l)(1)) is amended by striking ``through 1996'' and 
inserting ``and 1995''.
    (c) Cancer Registries.--Section 399L(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
280e-4(a)) (as amended by section 2003(1) of Public Law 103-43) is 
amended by striking ``each of the fiscal years 1995 through 1996'' and 
inserting ``fiscal year 1995''.
    (d) Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research and 
Demonstration Centers.--Section 1706(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300u-
5(e)) is amended by striking ``through 1996'' and inserting ``through 
1995''.
    (e) Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grants.--Section 
1901(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300w(a)) is amended by striking 
``through 1997'' and inserting ``and 1995''.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that, beginning on the date of 
enactment of this Act and continuing through fiscal year 1995, all Acts 
regarding the authorization or reauthorization of Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention programs should be authorized only through 
fiscal year 1995. Beginning in fiscal year 1995, Congress should 
reauthorize the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its 
programs in one comprehensive Act. After fiscal year 1995, 
reauthorization of such Centers and its programs should occur on a 
regular cyclical basis.

                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.11



SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2005 CASH BONUS PLAN



Following is a summary of the fiscal 2005 cash bonus plan for executive officers of IMPAC Medical Systems, Inc. as approved
by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors in September 2004:



Fiscal 2005 Gross Revenue Target: $[*] million

Net Income Target: $[*] million



For the executive officers, 50% of the maximum bonus is based on the Gross
Revenue Target and 50% of the maximum bonus is based on the Net Income Target.



Executive officers will receive no bonus at 85% of the target amount and 100% of bonus at 105% of the target amount. The bonus amount continues to increase linearly up to 115% of the target amount, subject to the
maximum bonus limit.



The executive officers are eligible for
the following bonus ranges:



|                      |  |             |        |              |   |        
|--------------------- |  | ----------- | ------ | ------------ | - | -------
|Executive Officer     |  | TargetBonus |        | MaximumBonus
|Joseph K. Jachinowski |  | $           | 93,750 |              | $ | 125,000
|James P. Hoey         |  | $           | 93,750 |              | $ | 125,000
|David A. Auerbach     |  | $           | 93,750 |              | $ | 125,000
|Kendra A. Borrego     |  | $           | 37,500 |              | $ | 50,000 



* Specific target levels have been
omitted in reliance on the response to Question 13 of the Current Report on Form 8-K Frequently Asked Questions dated November 23, 2004.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Louis, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 611]

*110Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered July 6, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of conspiracy in the fourth degree, scheme to defraud in the first degree and grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 years, 1 to 3 years, and 11⁄2 to 41⁄2 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. With respect to the grand larceny conviction “[t]he evidence warranted rejection of defendant’s claim that he made, or believed he was making, authorized expenditures for union purposes, since the expenditures . . . were ‘so clearly personal in nature that such a claim is scarcely credible’ ” *(People v Devine,*276 AD2d 258, 258 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 933 [2000], quoting *United States v Ottley,*509 F2d 667, 672 [1975]), and there was no evidence that the union knew of, and actually approved, the particular expenses at issue. The evidence, including defendant’s implicit misrepresentations that the expenses were for union business, supported the scheme to defraud conviction (see *People v Keyes,*298 AD2d 234, 235 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 583 [2003]; *People v Napolitano,*282 AD2d 49, 56 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 866 [2001]; *see also People v Wolf,*284 AD2d 102, 103 [2001], *mod on other grounds*98 NY2d 105 [2002]). Given the parties’ stipulation about the amount of money involved, and the reasonable inferences that could be drawn from defendant’s conduct *(see People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 381 [1980]; *People v Parsons,*275 AD2d 933, 934 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 937 [2000], *cert denied*532 US 998 [2001]), the evidence also supported defendant’s conspiracy conviction. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Ellerin, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
|                                                                                                                                                            | Exhibit    (3)(i) |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                            |
| This is a re-typed      version of the original filed document, the reproduction quality is poor;      the original document bears a file date of June 12, 2008 |
|                                                                                                                                                            |

----

| Entity      #: 3159809Date      Filed: 07/07/2008Pedro      A. CortésSecretary      of the Commonwealth |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                      |   | Commonwealth      of Pennsylvania             |
|--------|---------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   | M.      BURR KEIM COMPANY |   | ARTICLES      OF AMENDMENT-BUSINESS 3 Page(s) |
|   | COUNTER PICK-UP           |   |                                          |

----

|   | /s/      Raymond J. De Hont                         |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Raymond      J. De Hont                             |
|   | Chairman,      Chief Executive Officer andPresident |

----
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13884]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. IA 98-20 ASLBP No. 98-742-04-EA]


Lourdes T. Boschuk; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board

    Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, 
published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28710 (1972), and Sections 
2.105, 2.700, 2.702, 2.714, 2.714a, 2.717, 2.721, and 2.772(j) of the 
Commission's Regulations, all as amended, an Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following 
proceeding.

Lourdes T. Boschuk

Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities

IA 98-20

    In accordance with 10 CFR 202, this Board is established as a 
result of the petitioner, Lourdes T. Boschuk, requesting a hearing on 
April 27, 1998, for an NRC Order issued April 10, 1998. The Order 
prohibits Ms. Boschuk from engaging in NRC-licensed activities for five 
years, requires her to inform the NRC of any NRC licensed entity or 
entities where she is involved and prohibits such involvements, and 
requires her to provide a copy of the Order to all such NRC-licensed 
entities.
    The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges:

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
Thomas D. Murphy, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
Frederick J. Shon, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.

    All correspondence, documents and other materials in this 
proceeding shall be filed with the Judges in accordance with 10 CFR 
2.701.

    Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of May 1998.
B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. 98-13884 Filed 5-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
2016-1850.

#### State ex rel. Smith v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

In Mandamus. On S.CtPrac.R. 12.04 determination. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.
No. 12-7114.

#### Blanks *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.