alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Kidd-Kott Construction Co., Inc., Petitioner, v Joan F. Lillis et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of West Seneca, Respondents.

*997Petitioner applied to the Town Board for a special permit allowing use of its property for a self-service car wash. The permit was denied after a public hearing.

The testimony of area residents regarding the effect of increased traffic upon property values is not sufficient to support the denial of the permit *(see, Matter of Frangella Mushroom Farms v Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*87 AD2d 962, *affd*57 NY2d 811; *Matter of New York Tennis Assoc. v Town of Vestal,*97 AD2d 899). There is no evidence before the Town Board that the proposed use would increase traffic or affect property values to any greater extent than a use permitted within the district as a matter of right *(see, Matter of Lee Realty Co. v Village of Spring Val.,*61 NY2d 892, 894; *Matter of Hobbs v Albanese,*70 AD2d 1049, 1050).

The Board’s findings that the proposed use would constitute a "possible safety hazard” and "could substantially affect property values” are conclusory in form and based on no more than speculation and conjecture and cannot serve as a basis for denial of a permit *(see, Matter of Ennis v Crowley,*12 AD2d 999, 1000; *Matter of Pluto’s Retreat v Granito,*80 AD2d 899, 900-901).

Also, there is no evidence to support the determination that the proposed use is not a reasonable buffer to private residences. That conclusion is contrary to the findings of the Planning Board as well as to the settled rule that the inclusion of a use in the ordinance is a per se finding that it is in harmony with the neighborhood *(Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals,*30 NY2d 238, 243).

Though we annul the Board’s determination and direct that a permit be issued, the matter is remitted to the Board to consider whether any reasonable conditions consistent with the ordinance should be imposed upon issuance of the permit *(Matter of Pluto’s Retreat v Granito, supra.)*(Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Exhibit
32.1




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 China BAK Battery, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Xiangqian Li,
Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/
      Xiangqian LiXiangqian
      LiPresident
      & Chief Executive
Officer




December
12, 2008
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

215 CA 12-01857 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

TONYA TIEDE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FRONTIER SKYDIVERS, INC., HOLLANDS INTERNATIONAL FIELD AIRPORT, AL HOLLANDS, DAYSTAR TRADING & VENTURES, LLC, PAUL GATH, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

DIXON & HAMILTON, LLP, GETZVILLE (MICHAEL B. DIXON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS FRONTIER SKYDIVERS, INC. AND PAUL GATH.
STEPHENS & STEPHENS, LLP, BUFFALO (R. WILLIAM STEPHENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS HOLLANDS INTERNATIONAL FIELD AIRPORT AND AL HOLLANDS.
JAECKLE FLEISCHMANN & MUGEL, LLP, BUFFALO (BRADLEY A. HOPPE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT DAYSTAR TRADING & VENTURES, LLC.
FEROLETO LAW, BUFFALO (PAUL B. BECKER OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Appeals and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John L. Michalski, A.J.), entered January 5, 2012. The order dismissed plaintiff’s cause of action for gross negligence and otherwise denied the motions of defendants to dismiss the amended complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeals and cross appeal are unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Tiede v Frontier Skydivers, Inc. ([appeal No. 2] ___ AD3d ___ [Apr. 26, 2013]).

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2562 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the special expensing 

rules for certain film and television productions. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 21, 2015 

Ms. TITUS 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 

the special expensing rules for certain film and television 

productions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL EXPENSING RULES 

4 FOR CERTAIN FILM AND TELEVISION PRO5 DUCTIONS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (f) of section 181 of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘December 31, 2014’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

9 2016’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2562 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATES.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to productions commencing after 

3 December 31, 2014. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
exv4w15







Exhibit 4.15








	Stock Certificate Cusip 78467J 10 0




 









 








          THE CORPORATION HAS MORE THAN ONE CLASS OR SERIES OF STOCK AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED. THE
CORPORATION WILL FURNISH WITHOUT CHARGE TO EACH STOCKHOLDER UPON WRITTEN REQUEST A COPY OF THE
FULL TEXT OF THE PREFERENCES, VOTING POWERS, QUALIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL AND RELATIVE RIGHTS OF THE
SHARES OF EACH CLASS OR SERIES OF STOCK AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION AS SET FORTH IN
THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF THE CORPORATION AND AMENDMENTS THERETO FILED WITH THE
SECRETARY OF STATE OF DELAWARE.





	 	 	The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations:






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	TEN COM	 	—	 	as tenants in common	 	 	 	UNIF GIFT MIN ACT —	 	                                        	 	Custodian	 	                                        
	TEN ENT	 	—	 	as tenants by the entireties	 	 	 	 	 	(Cust)
	 	 	 	(Minor)
	JT TEN	 	—	 	as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common	 	 	 	 	 	under Uniform Gifts to Minors
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Act	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	(State)
	 	 





Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.





      





For value received,                      hereby sell, assign and transfer unto




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

	 	 	 
	 	IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 





 



(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)



 



 



 



 



 




	 	 	 
	 

	 	Shares
	 	 	 
	of the common stock represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint







	 	 	 
	 

	 	Attorney
	 	 	 
	to transfer the said stock on the books of the within named Corporation with
full power of substitution in the premises.







	 	 	 	 	 
	Dated

	 	 
	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 






	 	 	 
	(Signature)
	 	 
	 	 	 
	NOTICE:

	 	THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS
WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT
ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.







Signature(s) Guaranteed:




	 	 	 
	By
	 	 
	 	 	 
	 

	 	THE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE
GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS, STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND
LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN
AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM),
PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                       5
<MULTIPLIER>                                1,000
       

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      88,738
<SECURITIES>                                843,486
<RECEIVABLES>                               882,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                (3,307)
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            0
<PP&E>                                      16,046
<DEPRECIATION>                              (5,958)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,923,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       0
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    476
<OTHER-SE>                                  574,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,923,368 
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            292,153
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            110,499
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            2,514
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          76,362
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             102,788
<INCOME-TAX>                                41,984
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         61,710
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                61,710
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                               1.32
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 573 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 573

   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 
                 marketing of authorized generic drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2009

  Mrs. Emerson (for herself, Mr. Berry, Mr. Moore of Kansas, and Mr. 
    Wamp) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the 
                 marketing of authorized generic drugs.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF AUTHORIZED GENERICS.

    Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
355) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(w) Prohibition of Authorized Generic Drugs.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, no holder of a new drug application approved under 
        subsection (c) shall manufacture, market, sell, or distribute 
        an authorized generic drug, direct or indirectly, or authorize 
        any other person to manufacture, market, sell, or distribute an 
        authorized generic drug.
            ``(2) Authorized generic drug.--For purposes of this 
        subsection, the term `authorized generic drug'--
                    ``(A) means any version of a listed drug (as such 
                term is used in subsection (j)) that the holder of the 
                new drug application approved under subsection (c) for 
                that listed drug seeks to commence marketing, selling, 
                or distributing, directly or indirectly, after receipt 
                of a notice sent pursuant to subsection (j)(2)(B) with 
                respect to that listed drug; and
                    ``(B) does not include any drug to be marketed, 
                sold, or distributed--
                            ``(i) by an entity eligible for exclusivity 
                        with respect to such drug under subsection 
                        (j)(5)(B)(iv); or
                            ``(ii) after expiration or forfeiture of 
                        any exclusivity with respect to such drug under 
                        such subsection (j)(5)(B)(iv).''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2458 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2458

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 5351 Lapalco Boulevard in Marrero, Louisiana, as the ``Lionel R. 
                  Collins, Sr. Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2015

  Mr. Richmond (for himself and Mr. Scalise) introduced the following 
 bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 5351 Lapalco Boulevard in Marrero, Louisiana, as the ``Lionel R. 
                  Collins, Sr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. LIONEL R. COLLINS, SR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 5351 Lapalco Boulevard in Marrero, Louisiana, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Lionel R. Collins, Sr. Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Lionel R. 
Collins, Sr. Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, George
E. Strickler, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
of Stoneridge, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





(1)  the
report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the second quarter ended June 30, 2010
(“the Report”) which this certification accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and





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





/s/ George E.
    StricklerGeorge E. Strickler, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerJuly 28, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the matter of J.B.

Appellate case number: 01

- 13

- 00844

- CV

Trial court case number: 2013

- 02490J

Trial court: 314th District Court of Harris County

We are in re ceipt of a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certification of the right to

appeal signed by the trial court Judge on February 13, 2014. As such, we DENY the motion to

dismiss filed by appellee on December 30, 2013. Appellant’s brief is already on file. Appellee’s

brief is due within 30 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

X Act ing individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 10, 2014
#### Suttle *v.*The State.

Appeal from Bibb Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. John Moore.

No counsel marked as appearing for appellant.

Charles G. Brown, Attorney-General, for the State.

Opinion by

Dowd.ell, J,

The appellant was indicted and tried for murder, ivas convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to the penitentiary for life.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001002137
<NAME>                        SWISSRAY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1
<CASH>                                     3,245,610
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              4,680,714
<ALLOWANCES>                               174,995
<INVENTORY>                                5,816,197
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           14,407,589
<PP&E>                                     7,748,963
<DEPRECIATION>                             1,379,967
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             25,538,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      15,054,173
<BONDS>                                    14,242,793
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   227,864
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,486,366)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               25,538,297
<SALES>                                    12,393,655
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           12,393,655
<CGS>                                      9,372,120
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              9,372,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           13,724,509
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         5,476,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (15,770,224)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (15,770,224)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               (15,770,224)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.89)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.89)


</TABLE>
#### J. S. Bache & Co. *v.*R. H. Locke, Appellant

*Affidavit of defense*— Rule *for judgment*— Rule *made absolute,*— Pe*tition to open judgment*— Refusal—Appeals *from*— Time *for talcing appeal.*

Where a judgment has been entered for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense, the defendant cannot, by making a number of motions to open the judgment, prolong the period during which he could be permitted to appeal from the entry of the judgment against him. The entry of the judgment was a final order, and the defendant cannot prolong the time within which he must appeal, by motions to set aside.

A petition to open a judgment is addressed to the sound discretion of the Court, and a decree dischargng the rule will not be reversed in the absence of proof of abuse of such discretion.

Argued October 15, 1925.

Appeal No. 158 October T., 1925, by defendant from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia County, September T., 1923, No. 2924, in the case of J. S. Bache, Edward Wise, Nathan Kann, Frank J. Murphy, Morton F. Stern, Fred L. Richards, Leopold S. Bache, Arthur F. Broderick and Joseph P. Griffin, copartners, trading as J. S. Bache *&*Co. v. R. H. Locke.

Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Affirmed.

Assumpsit for amount due on purchase price of railroad bonds.

Before Gordon, J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Rule to open judgment. The Court discharged the rule. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned,*among others, was the decree of the Court.

*R. E. Locke,*for appellant.

*Walter B. Gibbons,*and with him *Wm. H. Whitaker,*for appellees.

*502October 26, 1925 :

Per Curiam,

Judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense was entered against this defendant on December 18, 1923. The defendant subsequently made a number of motions to open the judgment, which in regular order were refused by the court below. He contends that by making these motions, he could prolong the period during which he could be permitted to appeal from the entry of the judgment against him, in default of a sufficient affidavit of defense. This he cannot do; the entry of the judgment was a final order 'and the defendant could not prolong the time within whieh he must appeal by motions to set it aside. The court did finally, on the petition of the defendant, on September 18, 1924, grant a rule on the plaintiffs to show cause why the judgment should not be opened. The plaintiffs filed an answer to this petition denying the material averments thereof, no depositions were taken, and the court, on October 10,1924, discharged the rule. We would not be warranted, upon the record presented, in holding that the court in discharging the rule to open the judgment, was guilty of an abuse of discretion.

The order is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
# C_2022333EN.01000501.xml

| 1.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 333/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 333/5

---

Opinion 04/2022

(pursuant to Article 287(4) and Article 322(1)(a), TFEU)

concerning the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/241 as regards REPowerEU chapters in recovery and resilience plans and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, Directive 2003/87/EC and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 (2022/0164 (COD))

(2022/C 333/05)

The European Court of Auditors has published its opinion 04/2022 (pursuant to Article 287(4) and Article 322(1)(a), TFEU) concerning the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2021/241 as regards REPowerEU chapters in recovery and resilience plans and amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1060, Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, Directive 2003/87/EC and Decision (EU) 2015/1814 [2022/0164 (COD)].

The opinion can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=61912

---