alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(7 App. Div. 278)

#### SMITH v. CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 29, 1896.)

1. Necessary Parties—Trustees.

In an action for an accounting in respect to the income of securities which had been placed in defendant’s possession by a trustee, who had since died, the successor of such trustee is a necessary party.

2. Same—Pleading Defect.

The fact that the nonjoinder of a person as a party has been pleaded as a defense does not prevent the court from directing such person to be brought in as a party.

Appeal from special term," New York county.

Action by Emma Gondit Smith, as testamentary guardian, against the Central Trust Company of New York. From an order denying a motion to bring in William Pennington, trustee, as a party defendant, said Pennington appeals. Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and BARRETT, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.

Adrian H. Joline, for appellant.

Alex. Thain, for respondent.

INGRAHAM, J.

We think this motion should have been granted. The action is in equity, by a testamentary guardian of two infants, to obtain an accounting with respect to the income of certain securities held by the defendant “in trust.” In such an action “any person may be made a defendant who has, or claims an interest in the controversy, adverse to the plaintiff, or who is a necessary party defendant, for the complete determination or settlement of a question involved therein.” Code, § 447. And section 452 of the *153Code provides that the court must direct a party whose presence is necessary for a complete determination of the controversy to be brought in. It appears that the property concerning which this plaintiff has asked the defendant to account was deposited with the defendant by one George Condit Smith, who held it as trustee; that said Smith is dead, and that William Pennington has been appointed by the chancellor of the state of New Jersey to succeed the said George Condit Smith as trustee; and that the said Pennington, as such substituted trustee, is a necessary party to a complete determination of an action for an accounting of the property of the trust estate, is apparent. There is nothing in the Code to justify the conclusion that the fact that the nonjoinder of the substituted trustee has been pleaded as a defense prevents the court from directing such a person to be brought in as a party defendant at any time. In fact, the only effect of pleading this as a defense in this action would be, if it was good, to require the court on the trial to direct that the person be made a party, and adjourn the proceeding until its order had been complied with. Nor should we determine on this motion the question as to the jurisdiction of the chancellor of New Jersey to make this appointment. The trust was created under the laws of the state of New Jersey, and was to be performed as provided by its law; and the order of a court of competent jurisdiction, directing how that trust shall be carried out, cannot be attacked collaterally.

We think the order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title
18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby
certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:

1)	The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the "Form 10-K")
of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Date: May 23, 2014



| | By: /s/ Lei Gu
   Name: Lei Gu
Title: Chief Executive Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40664 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Raul Pineda,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:10

- CR

- 70

- 5

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * In 2011 Raul Pineda, federal prisoner 64133

- 179 , was convicted of one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine, 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, and five kilograms or more of a substance containing a

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 18, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40664 Document: 00515983147 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2021No. 20

- 40664

2 detectable amount of cocaine. He was sentenced to serve a within

- guidelines term of 360 months in prison and a five

- year term of supervised release. Now, he appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
motion for a sentence reducti on, which was based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.
When considering a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the district court first asks whether the defendant is eligible for a reduction and the extent of the reduction authorized under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 826

- 27 (2010). If the defendant is eligible for a reduction, then the court then asks whether, as a matter of discretion, one is warranted. Id. at 827. The district court did not err when it determined that Pineda was ineligible for a reduction. Consequently, the judgment i s **AFFIRMED**

. Case: 20-40664 Document: 00515983147 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2021
<PAGE>   1


                                   Exhibit 21


                           Subsidiaries of the Company

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                       Name under which
           Name             Jurisdiction of Incorporation         Subsidiary Conducts Business
           ----             -----------------------------         ----------------------------

<S>                             <C>                             <C>
Long Reach, Inc.                      Delaware                    Brudi
                                                                  Long Reach
                                                                  Long Reach Manufacturing Company
                                                                  Rol-Lift
                                                                  Rol-Lift Corporation

Presto Lifts, Inc.                  Rhode Island                  Presto Lifts
(subsidiary of Long
Reach, Inc.)

Long Reach Brudi Pacific             Australia                    Brudi
Pty Ltd (subsidiary of                                            Brudi Pacific
Long Reach, Inc.)                                                 Brudi Pacific Pty Ltd
                                                                  Long Reach Brudi Pacific

Blue Giant Equipment                  Ontario                     Blue Giant
Corporation
</TABLE>
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-3207

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Claudis Darnell Alexander, Jr., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 22, 2002 Filed: March 27, 2002

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Claudis Darnell Alexander, Jr., appeals from a 3-year extension of his supervised release, which the district court imposed after Alexander already had served 3 years of supervised release following a bank fraud conviction. We reject Alexander’s contention that the court abused its discretion by premising the extension on his inability to pay restitution as ordered. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) (authorizing court to extend supervised release when “less than the maximum authorized term was previously imposed”); United States v. Grimes , 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review).-2- We remand, however, for the limited purpose of setting a supervised release term within the 5-year range permitted by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (authorizing not more than 30 years’ imprisonment for bank fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(2) (Class B felony is offense for which maximum term of imprisonment is 25 years or more); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1) (Class B felons cannot receive more than 5 years’ supervised release); United States v. Fuentes-Mendoza , 56 F.3d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1995) (reading § 3583(e)(2) to mean that defendant’s supervised release term can be extended only up to maximum originally allowable term), cert. denied , 516 U.S. 925 (1995). The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to reduce Alexander’s extension term to no more than 2 years. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
PAGE 1 – JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

A.F., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PROVIDENCE HEALTH PLAN,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:13-cv-0776-SI

JUDGMENT

For the reasons stated in the Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement 

and Supporting Memorandum (ECF 188), the Court gives final approval to the settlement of 

Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief (the only class action claim asserted in this case) as fair, 

reasonable, and adequate to the parties and the Class, including the amount of $638,244.25 in 

attorney’s fees and costs and $10,000 each in class representative service awards to Lead Class 

Plaintiff A.F. and Lead Class Plaintiff A.P.

THEREFORE, IT IS ADJUDGED that:

(A) Plaintiffs’ First Claim for Relief is dismissed:

1. as to Class Members, excluding the named Plaintiffs, with prejudice as to 

injunctive relief only and without prejudice as to all other forms of relief; and

2. as to the named Plaintiffs, with prejudice in its entirety as to all forms of 

relief;

Case 3:13-cv-00776-SI Document 195 Filed 03/14/17 Page 1 of 2
PAGE 2 – JUDGMENT

(B) Plaintiffs’ Second Claim for Relief is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety as to 

the named Plaintiffs; and

(C) Plaintiffs’ Third Claim for Relief is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety as to 

the named Plaintiffs.

DATED this 14th day of March, 2017.

/s/ Michael H. Simon____________

Michael H. Simon

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00776-SI Document 195 Filed 03/14/17 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63
of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge and belief, that:



|1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the
"Form 10-K") of the Company 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                        

Date: March 29, 2011



| | By: /s/ Lei Gu
   Name: Lei Gu
Title: Chief Executive Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Research Program Support: Ames, IA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Ames, Iowa National Animal Disease Center Research Program Support People & Locations







Nathan L Ferrie
                        Research Program Support

                        




                        
                        Motor Vehicle Operator
                        Phone: (515) 509-4334
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
1 –JUDGMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JASON LIBBY and DON LIBBY,

Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 1:15-cv-00298-CL

v. JUDGMENT

CITY OF MEDFORD, MEDFORD

POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE

BILL FORD, SERGEANT KEVIN

WALRUFF, OFFICER JONATHAN

BAGLIETTO, SERGEANT TOM

LANIERI, SERGEANT JOSH REIMER

and CHIEF OF POLICE TIM GEORGE,

Defendants.

_____________________________

The Court has adopted the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

Accordingly, this action is dismissed. 

DATED: 5/22/2017

Mary L. Moran, Clerk

By /s/ Cathy Kramer

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:15-cv-00298-CL Document 77 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 1
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Databases
                        Alfalfa Transcription Factor Database
                                    iPhyClassifier - Phytoplasma Sequence ClassificationSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory People & Locations







Robert  Cating
                        Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory

                        




                        
                        POST DOC
                        Phone: (301) 504-5203
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### CAIRNS v. CAIRNS.

(Decided June 12, 1913.)

Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. A. H. Benners.

John W. Atlman, and Speer Whittaker, for appellant.

Harsi-i, Beddoyy & Pitts, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B E T Z A ID A T E R R O N E S -B E L T R A N ; et a l., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 73918 A ge nc yN os . A 075- 692- 249

A 075- 693- 685 A 075- 693- 688 A 075- 693- 687 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary15, 2011 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an dM . S M I T H , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . B e t z a i daT e rr one s - B e l tr an and he rf a m i l y , na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of M e xi c o, pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w of

the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng th e irm o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . Morales



# FI LED MA R 07 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 73918 2 Apo l i na r v . Mukasey , 514 F . 3d 893, 895 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . W e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. T h e B IA act edw i th i n i t s d i scret i o n i n d en yi n g p et i t i o n ers’ m o t i o n b ecau se the m ot i on f

a i l e d t o i de nt i f

yanye rr orof

f a c torl aw i n the B I A ’ s M ar c h 19, 2008, o r d e r . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(b)(1). P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 10.26

EX - 10.26 - Consulting Agreement as of October 26, 2001 between Race Rock
Design Partners and Eurotech, Ltd.


                                 Design Partners
                                  4 Redin Lane
                            East Longmeadow, MA 01028
                                  413-525-2295

October 22, 2001

Re: Letter of Intent For Website Work & Bulk email Promotion for Eurotech Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

This letter of intent is between Race Rock Design Partners and Eurotech Ltd.
Race Rock Design Partners is a Massachusetts based company and Eurotech Ltd is
located in Fairfax, Virginia and incorporated in the District of Columbia.

Bruce Whittier and Sean Coughlin, dba Race Rock Design Partners, will provide
their internet expertise in developing a long term goal oriented promotional
website and E-mail campaign for Eurotech Ltd. under the guidelines set forth by
designated representatives of Eurotech Ltd.

Eurotech Ltd. agrees that designated representative(s) of the company shall be
named to represent the company and assist in providing content and direction of
web-site development and bulk email distribution and content. Written
authorization for such content will be provided by Eurotech Ltd.

SCOPE OF WORK

An integrated long-term email and web-site campaign to increase public awareness
of Eurotech Ltd. and its products will be designed and implemented. The
implementation is intended to reach an audience of approximately 20 million
people. The effort will be sustained over a minimum six-month period. Follow up
efforts may contain added scope activities, which may require additional effort
and compensation. The basic scope of work includes the following:

          1) Development of bulk email content.
          2) Development of website content
          3) System design and integration of all server hardware and software
             necessary to reach the target audience of 20 million people
          4) Mechanisms to create visibility between target audience and
             following:
             - Mass media, Political organizations, Eurotech  customers and
             investors.

<PAGE>

EX - 10.26 - Consulting Agreement as of October 26, 2001 between Race Rock
Design Partners and Eurotech, Ltd.

COMPENSATION

Compensation to Race Rock Design Partners for promotional efforts under the
basic scope of work will be as follows:

$17,500.00 cash to be paid by 10/26/2001; and warrants as follows:

80,000 Warrants issued with a strike price of $1.00
100,000 warrants issued with a strike price of $2.50
100,000 warrants issued with a strike price of $5.00

Race Rock Design Partners reserves the right to review the contractual
conditions of the warrants and agrees to above conditions only on the final
approval of those documents. Both parties upon further review have one week to
finalize terms and conditions or to terminate this letter of intent via written
notice.

By: /s/ Don V. Hahnfeldt           By: /s/ Bruce Whittier
    -----------------------            ------------------

    Don Hahnfeldt, Eurotech CEO        Bruce Whittier, Race Rock Design Partners