alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SALT SPRINGS NAT. BANK v. CRABTREE. In the matter of the petition of the Salt Springs National Bank against the executors of William Crab-tree, deceased.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. See 40 N. Y. Supp. 1148.
HYRUM RESERVOIRLatitude: 41.621Longitude: -111.861Elevation: 4672

HYRUM RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Powder Mountain Site Page...



Powder Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Dry Bread Pond Site Page...



Dry Bread Pond

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Little Bear Site Page...



Little Bear

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Monte Cristo Site Page...



Monte Cristo
# C_2021299EN.01000101.xml

| 27.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 299/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 299/1

---

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 16 July 2021

to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of Banka Slovenije

(ECB/2021/28)

(2021/C 299/01)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

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

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

| (2) | The mandate of Banka Slovenije’s current external auditors, Ernst & Young revizija, poslovno svetovanje, d.o.o., ended following the audit for the financial year 2020. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2021 onwards. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The mandate of Banka Slovenije’s current external auditors, Ernst & Young revizija, poslovno svetovanje, d.o.o., ended following the audit for the financial year 2020. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2021 onwards.

| (3) | Banka Slovenije has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers, podjetje za revizijo in druge finančno računovodske storitve, d. o. o. as its external auditors for the financial years 2021 to 2023, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Banka Slovenije has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers, podjetje za revizijo in druge finančno računovodske storitve, d. o. o. as its external auditors for the financial years 2021 to 2023,

HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that PricewaterhouseCoopers, podjetje za revizijo in druge finančno računovodske storitve, d. o. o. should be appointed as the external auditors of Banka Slovenije for the financial years 2021 to 2023.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 16 July 2021.

The President of the ECB

Christine LAGARDE

---
CABALLO RESERVOIRLatitude: 32.896Longitude: -107.292Elevation: 4184

CABALLO RESERVOIR

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ute Creek Site Page...



Ute Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Vacas Locas Site Page...



Vacas Locas

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Mcknight Cabin Site Page...



Mcknight Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Grayback Site Page...



Grayback

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Tres Ritos Site Page...



Tres Ritos

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Powderhorn Site Page...



Taos Powderhorn

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Shuree Site Page...



Shuree

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Palo Site Page...



Palo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to San Antonio Sink Site Page...



San Antonio Sink

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Garita Peak Site Page...



Garita Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rio Santa Barbara Site Page...



Rio Santa Barbara

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Pueblo Site Page...



Taos Pueblo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bateman Site Page...



Bateman

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Chamita Site Page...



Chamita

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Culebra #2 Site Page...



Culebra #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Cumbres Trestle Site Page...



Cumbres Trestle

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Gallegos Peak Site Page...



Gallegos Peak

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hopewell Site Page...



Hopewell

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lily Pond Site Page...



Lily Pond

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lookout Mountain Site Page...



Lookout Mountain

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Middle Creek Site Page...



Middle Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to North Costilla Site Page...



North Costilla

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Quemazon Site Page...



Quemazon

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red River Pass #2 Site Page...



Red River Pass #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Senorita Divide #2 Site Page...



Senorita Divide #2

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Trinchera Site Page...



Trinchera

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper San Juan Site Page...



Upper San Juan

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Whiskey Ck Site Page...



Whiskey Ck

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wolf Creek Summit Site Page...



Wolf Creek Summit

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rice Park Site Page...



Rice Park
#### SEBRING, Appellant, v. QUIGLEY et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Charles W. Sebring against James Quigley and others.

No opinion. Interlocutory judgment, so far as appealed from, affirmed, with costs. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 222 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 222

To prohibit the Export-Import Bank of the United States from providing 
  financial support for certain high carbon intensity energy projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2015

 Mr. Huffman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the Export-Import Bank of the United States from providing 
  financial support for certain high carbon intensity energy projects.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EXPORT-IMPORT BANK SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN HIGH 
              CARBON INTENSITY ENERGY PROJECTS.

    Section 2(b) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (12 U.S.C. 
635(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(14) Prohibition on Support for Certain High Carbon Intensity 
Energy Projects.--
            ``(A) In general.--The Bank shall not guarantee, insure, 
        extend credit, or participate in the extension of credit in 
        connection with the purchase or sale of any good or service for 
        a high carbon intensity project.
            ``(B) High carbon intensity project defined.--In 
        subparagraph (A), the term `high carbon intensity project' 
        means a project that--
                    ``(i) is designed to generate electricity; and
                    ``(ii) if completed, would produce at least 500 
                grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of 
                electricity generated by the project.''.
                                 <all>
```
# ELEVENTH
ADDENDUM TO LEASE

This Ninth Addendum to Lease
is made and entered into the 30th day of December, 2002, between
Conifer Prince street Associates (Landlord) and Patient Infosystems, Inc.
formerly DSMI Corporation (Tenant).

WITNESSETH: that
Tenant currently leases and occupies approximately 5504 square feet of office
space at 46 Prince Street, Rochester, New York 14607 pursuant to a Lease
Agreement and First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth, Seventh, Eighth,
Ninth and Tenth Addenda To Lease, dated February 22, 1995; August 18, 1995;
November 17, 1995; March 28, 1996; October 29, 1996, November 30, 1996 and
November 24, 1997, June 16, 1999, November 2000, January 7, 2002, and June 24,
2002, respectively.

WHEREAS, Tenant and
Landlord desire to extend the Term of the Lease until June 30, 2003.

NOW,
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed upon by Landlord and Tenant to modify
Certain provisions of the Lease as follows:

1. Effective upon full execution of this Eighth Addendum to Lease,  the Term of the
Lease shall be extended for 6 months from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2003.
2. Tenant  agrees  to pay,  Base  Rent  for its'  leased  premises,  consisting  of
approximately 5504 square feet, as follows:

`Annual
               Period             Per Sq.ft.       Monthly
          Month-to-Month          Base Rent       Base Rent
          --------------         ----------       ---------
       01/1/2003-06/30/2003        $16.07          $7370.77`

Except as modified above,  all other terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement
and First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Seventh,  Eighth, Ninth and Tenth
Addenda to Lease dated  February 22, 1995;  August 18, 1995;  November 17, 1995;
March 28,  1996;  October 29, 1996 and  November 30, 1996 and November 24, 1997,
June 16, 1999 November 2000,  January 7, 2002,  and June 24, 2002  respectively,
shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

`Agreed to by:                      Agreed to by:
PATIENT INFOSYSTEMS, INC.          CONIFER PRINCE STREET ASSOCIATES
formerly DSMI CORPORATION



By:      /s/Kent A. Tapper         By:        /s/Terryl Butwid
   -----------------------------      ---------------------------



Date:        12/30/02              Date:       12/31/02
     ---------------------------        --------------------------`
EXHIBIT 31.2


Certification

I, Carole Hlozek, certify that:


1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of eLinear, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

2.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

3.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:

a.   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.   Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;

c.   Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

4.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a.   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: November 19, 2003



/s/ Carole Hlozek
------------------------
Carole Hlozek, Principal Accounting Officer


<PAGE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Sf,CURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,

Complainant,

HAKEEM DEVON CREEKMUR.

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023-0190

CG Enforcement Activity Number 7679343

: Honora Walter J. B hief Administrative Law

Appearances:

LT JOHN CROW

USCG Sector Virginia

For the Coast Guard

HAKEEM DEVON CREEKMUR, Pro se

For the Respondent

vs.

CONSENT ORDER

lssued: July 20.2023
CONSENT OR-DER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On June 28, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of Settlement

Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order, to be approved as a settlement ofthe case under 33

c.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed t}re terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding'

Done and dated JulY 20' 2023

New York, NY

HON. WALTER J BRUDZINSKI

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ruDGE

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

l
#### Patricia Nonnon, Individually and as Executrix of Kerri Nonnon, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v City of New York, Appellant. (And Other Actions.)

Submitted April 30, 2007;

decided May 3, 2007

Motion by Product Liability Advisory Council Inc. for leave to appear amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief may be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
#### TRAIN, Respondent, v. DAVIDSON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 12, 1896.)

Action by Mary B. Train against George L. Davidson. Ira Leo Bamberger, for appellant. Fla-men B. Candler, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The papers read in opposition to defendant’s motion to resettle the order show that the counsel who appeared for defendant and opposed the motion to consolidate was presented with the order, wrote his name therein as such opposing counsel, and returned the same to plaintiff’s counsel without objection to its form or contents, or suggestion of change in any respect. This order was presented to the court and signed by it after decision of the motion, and no change was then made or suggested. The court below was therefore authorized to conclude that the order as entered was by consent of the representative of defendant. It would have been quite proper to charge plaintiff with the costs of defendant in the city court as a condition of granting the order of consolidation; but the court had the power to decide otherwise, and defendant, not having appealed from the order, is concluded thereby, and is not entitled, upon a motion to resettle the order, to a reconsideration of that question. It may be that the order is indefinite in its recital, “and on all *1134the papers and proceedings herein”; but, as no objection was made by counsel when it was submitted, such recital cannot now be made the basis of objection. The substantial right possessed by defendant related to the costs in the citv court, and, if any error was committed therein, it could only be corrected upon appeal. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
PINEWOOD RESERVOIRLatitude: 40.37Longitude: -105.29Elevation: None

Pinewood Reservoir

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



Copeland Lake
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 March 17, 2021 b0310

Order 

Clerk

March 17, 2021

162353

In re BOOKER/ANTHONY, Minors. SC: 162353

COA: 351237

Wayne CC Family Division: 

 17-000905-NA

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 12, 2020 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32 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 Paid, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in their respective
capacities as capacity as President and CEO of the Company and as CFO of the
Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company. /s/ Gregory
 RotmanGregory
 RotmanPresident
 and CEOMarch 16,
 2009/s/ Richard
 RotmanRichard
 RotmanChief
 Financial OfficerMarch 16,
 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael E., Appellant.

Adjudication unanimously affirmed *(see, Matter of Ellingham v Morton,*116 AD2d 1032, *Iv denied*67 NY2d 607). (Appeal from adjudication of Genesee County Court, Morton, J.—youthful offender.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
#### Foundry Capital Sarl, Appellant, v International Value Advisers, LLC, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 98]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered December 5, 2011, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss because the written release, which plaintiff executed on November 22, 2010, precludes plaintiff from making the claims set forth in the complaint *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [1], [5]). It is clear that the entire purpose of the release was for plaintiff to waive its finder’s fee in relation to the subject transaction between defendant and a nonparty, as consideration to induce defendant to consummate the transaction at the higher price demanded by the nonparty. Plaintiffs entire duress argument is premised on its assertion that it would not have waived that fee if it were not under duress. However, plaintiff asserts that a provision in the release, which maintains in effect written agreements between the parties, meant that plaintiff was still entitled to its finders fee. Such a construction would render the entire purpose of the release a nullity *(see Credit Suisse First Boston v Utrecht-America Fin. Co.,*80 AD3d 485, 488-489 [2011]; *Village of Hamburg v American Ref-Fuel Co. of Niagara,*284 AD2d 85, 89 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 603 [2001]). Even assuming that the e-mail exchanges between plaintiff and defendant constitute a “written agreement,” the only construction which gives effect to the release, the primary purpose of which was plaintiffs fee waiver, is that the written agreements being maintained between plaintiff and defendant referred to any such agreements *other than*the fee agreement relating to the subject transaction at the core of the release.

Also, contrary to plaintiffs contention, there was “no actionable duress” alleged by the complaint *(Madey v Carman,*51 AD3d 985, 987 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 708 [2008]; *767 Third Ave. LLC v ORIX Capital Mkts., LLC, 26*AD3d 216 [2006], *lv denied*8 NY3d 803 [2007]). Plaintiff s argument that the release was executed under duress is belied by the fact that nonparty Barclays paid it a commission for facilitating the transaction, *621and a party cannot claim that it was compelled to execute an agreement under duress while simultaneously accepting the benefits of the agreement (see *Mendel v Henry Phipps Plaza*W., *Inc.,*27 AD3d 375, 376 [2006]). Doing so is tantamount to ratification (see *Philips S. Beach, LLC v ZC Specialty Ins. Co.,*55 AD3d 493 [2008], *lv denied*12 NY3d 713 [2009]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 6, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-50492

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEVEN ROBERT BARTH,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:03-CR-124-14-HLH

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Robert Barth appeals his jury-trial conviction and

sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100

kilograms or more of marijuana; conspiracy to import 100 kilograms

or more marijuana; and using, carrying, and possessing

semiautomatic assault rifles in furtherance of a drug-trafficking

crime. Barth was sentenced to 241 months in prison.

Barth first argues that the evidence was insufficient to

sustain his convictions. A reasonable jury could have found beyond
No. 04-50492

-2-

a reasonable doubt from the evidence that Barth knew that Arlo

Arreola and his associates were smuggling drugs into the United

States and distributing them and that he knowingly joined the

conspiracies and possessed the assault weapons in furtherance of

those drug-trafficking crimes. United States v. Ivey, 949 F.2d

759, 766 (5th Cir. 1991); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and

846; 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). 

Barth additionally argues for the first time on appeal that he

should be resentenced on his drug-trafficking conspiracy

convictions in light of United States v. Booker. This claim fails

to meet the plain-error standard because Barth has not shown that

the error affected his substantial rights. See United States v.

Bringier, 405 F.3d 310, 316 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert.

filed (Jul. 26, 2005) (No. 05-5535); United States v.

Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir. 2005). 

However, we do find that Barth’s argument that his convictions

and sentences for carrying a firearm in connection with a drugtrafficking offense are multiplicitous and violate double jeopardy

is meritorious. United States v. Privette, 947 F.2d 1259, 1262

(5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the district

court so that it may vacate one of the firearm convictions and

resentence Barth as to the firearm convictions. 

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.