alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Patricia A. Camarda, Also Known as Patricia S. Camarda, Deceased. Thomas M. Camarda, Sr., Appellant; Maryellen Ahneman et al., Re*115spondents.

In a proceeding for the compromise of controversies between the claimants to the estate of Patricia A. Camarda, also known as Patricia Spaulding Camarda, pursuant to SCPA 2106, Thomas M. Camarda, Sr., individually and as guardian of Thomas M. Camarda, Jr., appeals from an interim decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County (Signorelli, S.), entered July 22, 1986, which modified a compromise agreement entered into among the parties by disallowing the payment of certain attorneys’ fees to the attorneys for the objeetant guardian out of the estate, and, as so modified, approved said agreement.

Ordered that the interim decree is reversed, with one bill of costs payable out of the estate, and the matter is remitted to the Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The compromise agreement herein submitted to the Surrogate for approval pursuant to the provisions of SCPA 2106 was a proposed settlement of two contested proceedings (guardianship and accounting proceedings) which had been brought with respect to the estate of the decedent.

The agreement provided, *inter alia,*that the appellant would waive his right of election in consideration for a certain automobile and sums previously advanced to him and fixed the amount of attorneys’ fees payable to the appellant’s attorneys from the estate. The Surrogate, by interim decree entered July 22, 1986, modified the agreement by reducing the fees payable from the estate to the appellant’s tax counsel, and eliminating the fees payable from the estate to his other attorneys in their entirety, and as so modified, approved the agreement.

We agree with the appellant’s contention that the Surrogate erred in modifying the agreement and approving it as so modified. The Surrogate has the power to review the discretion and judgment of the estate’s representative in entering into a compromise agreement by either approving or disapproving it in its entirety. The Surrogate is without authority to substitute its own judgment for that of the parties *(see, Matter of Leopold,*259 NY 274; *Levine v Mellin,*79 AD2d 584; *Matter of Jefferies,*155 Misc 464). While the Surrogate has the power to fix attorneys’ fees for services rendered to a fiduciary or to a devisee, legatee, distributee or any person interested in an estate *(see,*SCPA 2110), in the context of the instant compromise agreement, where the appellant withdrew his right of election in consideration for the payment of his attorneys’ fees and sums advanced, the Surrogate should have *116determined whether the agreement was fair and reasonable, and if it was not, should have rejected it in its entirety and left the parties to draft a new agreement or to pursue their claims.

The matter is therefore remitted to the Surrogate, who should either approve or disapprove the agreement in its entirety, and state the reasons therefor. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF


PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER


OF APPLIED NATURAL GAS FUELS, INC.


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350








Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, A. Bradley Gabbard, Chief Financial Officer of Applied Natural Gas Fuels, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to my knowledge, the accompanying Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: March 29, 2011

By:
/s/ A. Bradley GabbardA. Bradley GabbardPrincipal Accounting Officer
#### BOEDECKER et al. v. WESTCHESTER FIRE INS. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

January 15, 1897.)

Action by Henry Boedecker and others against the Westchester Fire Insurance Company. Browne & Sheehan, for plaintiffs. C. A. Runk, for defendant.

No opinion. Motion dismissed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
# L_2011145DE.01005701.xml

| 31.5.2011 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 145/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.5.2011

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 145/57

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1060/2009 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 16. September 2009 über Ratingagenturen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 302 vom 17. November 2009
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 302 vom 17. November 2009

Seite 9, Artikel 3 Absatz 1 Buchstabe f:

anstatt:

| „f) | „bewertetes Unternehmen“ eine Rechtspersönlichkeit, deren Bonität in einem Rating explizit oder implizit bewertet wird, unabhängig davon, ob das Unternehmen das betreffende Rating in Auftrag gegeben oder dafür Informationen zur Verfügung gestellt hat;“ |
| --- | --- |

„f)

„bewertetes Unternehmen“ eine Rechtspersönlichkeit, deren Bonität in einem Rating explizit oder implizit bewertet wird, unabhängig davon, ob das Unternehmen das betreffende Rating in Auftrag gegeben oder dafür Informationen zur Verfügung gestellt hat;“

muss es heißen:

| „f) | „bewertetes Unternehmen“ eine Rechtspersönlichkeit, deren Bonität in einem Rating explizit oder implizit bewertet wird, unabhängig davon, ob sie das betreffende Rating in Auftrag gegeben oder dafür Informationen zur Verfügung gestellt hat;“. |
| --- | --- |

„f)

„bewertetes Unternehmen“ eine Rechtspersönlichkeit, deren Bonität in einem Rating explizit oder implizit bewertet wird, unabhängig davon, ob sie das betreffende Rating in Auftrag gegeben oder dafür Informationen zur Verfügung gestellt hat;“.

---
Exhibit 10.13.4

Amendment No. 9 (the "Amendment") To
Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement") between
Ray Rodriguez ("Employee") and The Univision Network Limited Partnership ("Company")

Employee
and Company agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:

1.Term.The Term of the Employment Agreement is extended through December 31,
2005, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Agreement.

2.Salary.The annual Base Salary rate will be: Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars
($800,000) for the annual period from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005.

3.Effective Date of Amendment.Upon execution by Employee and Company, this Amendment
will become effective as of January 1, 2003.

4.Notices.Any notice to Company shall also be sent to Company's General Counsel at
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 3050, Los Angeles, California 90067, Fax (310) 556-1526; and to Company's Deputy General Counsel at Univision, 5999 Center Drive, Los Angeles,
California 90045, Fax (310) 348-3679.

5.Other.Except as provided in this Amendment, all other terms and conditions in the
Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect, and the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is ratified and confirmed.

|                              |  | THE UNIVISION NETWORK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
|----------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|                              |  | By:                                      
|                              |  |                                          
|/s/RAY RODRIGUEZRay Rodriguez |  |                                          

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           7,315
<SECURITIES>                                    92,131
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,037
<PP&E>                                          11,080
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,896
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,722
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,272
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           167
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,722
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,223
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,490
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 717
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,755)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,755)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.54)
        

</TABLE>
CHAPMAN GULCH NEAR NASTLatitude: 39.264Longitude: -106.632Elevation: None

CHAPMAN GULCH NEAR NAST

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chapman Tunnel Site Page...



Chapman Tunnel

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Kiln Site Page...



Kiln

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Nast Lake Site Page...



Nast Lake
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 66 92

FRANKIE M. MILLER, JR. , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Mark S. Davis , Chief District Judge. ( 2: 16

- cv - 00 645

- MSD

- DEM )

Submitted : November 18, 2021 Decided: November 19, 2021

Before MOTZ, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

. Frankie M. Miller, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Frankie M. Miller, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S .C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

. See generally United
States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a con stitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certi ficate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2164 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2164

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
      15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold 
  improvements, qualified restaurant buildings and improvements, and 
                     qualified retail improvements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 2015

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
      15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold 
  improvements, qualified restaurant buildings and improvements, and 
                     qualified retail improvements.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF 15-YEAR STRAIGHT-LINE COST RECOVERY FOR 
              QUALIFIED LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS, QUALIFIED RESTAURANT 
              BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS, AND QUALIFIED RETAIL 
              IMPROVEMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Clauses (iv), (v), and (ix) of section 
168(e)(3)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by 
striking ``January 1, 2015'' and inserting ``January 1, 2016''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to property placed in service after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
#### MEAD et al., Respondents, v. HARTWELL et al., Appellants.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by Charles H. Mead and another against H. Edgar Hartwell and others.

Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and VAN WYCK and McCARTHY, JJ.

J. C. & H. C. Smith & Koepke, for appellants.

Dill & Chandler, for respondents.

McCARTHY, J.

There is nothing in the objection of the appellants; it is too finely drawn. The summons complies with the order and its intent. The order is therefore affirmed, with costs. All concur.
| datetime   | evaporation |
|------------|-------------|
| 2021-01-01 | 1.32171     |
| 2021-01-02 | 1.992732    |
| 2021-01-03 | 2.209628    |
| 2021-01-04 | 2.209628    |
| 2021-01-05 | 2.209628    |
| 2021-01-06 | 2.209628    |
| 2021-01-07 | 2.209628    |
| 2021-01-08 | 2.209628    |
| 2021-01-09 | 2.209628    |
| 2021-01-10 | 2.209628    |
| 2021-01-11 | 2.209628    |
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES–OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert B. Ladd, President
and Chief Executive Officer of MGT Capital Investments, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10–Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2014 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|August 14, 2014 | By: | /s/ ROBERT B. LADD                   
|--------------- | --- | -------------------------------------
|                |     | Robert B. Ladd                       
|                |     | President and Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5 
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AMERICAN
ARTISTS FILM CORPORATION'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             815
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         134,181
<DEPRECIATION>                                 111,275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,589,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,465
<OTHER-SE>                                    (923,349)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,589,881
<SALES>                                         31,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,000
<CGS>                                           27,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  315,361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,205
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (312,566)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (312,566)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (312,566)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)
        

</TABLE>
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2012080EN.01003902.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 20.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 80/39 |

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2009 of 26 June 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 166 of 27 June 2009](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2009_166_R_TOC)
)

In the annex, under CYPRUS:

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | for | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘594. | μπέïκιοï’, | | | read | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘594. | μπέικιοϊ’; | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | for | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘595. | μπέλαπαïς’, | | | read | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘595. | μπέλαπαϊς’; | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | for | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘622. | ορτάκιοï’, | | | read | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘622. | ορτάκιοϊ’. | | |

In the annex, under IRELAND:

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | for | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘12. | iρλανδία’, | | | read | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘12. | ιρλανδία’. | | |

In the annex, under SLOVAKIA:

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | for | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘22. | σλοßακικη-δημοκρατια’, | | | read | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘22. | σλοβακικη-δημοκρατια’; | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | for | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘41. | σλοßακικηδημοκρατια’, | | | read | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘41. | σλοβακικηδημοκρατια’; | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | for | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘55. | σλοßακικη’, | | | read | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘55. | σλοβακικη’. | | |

In the annex, under NORWAY:

| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| — | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | for | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘17. | Νορßηγία’, | | | read | : | | | | | --- | --- | | ‘17. | Νορβηγία’. | | |

---