alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(78 Hun, 275.)

#### In re BALLEIS’ ESTATE.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Transfer Tax—Religious Corporations.

Laws 1892, c. 899, which exempts from the transfer tax property devised or bequeathed to “any religious corporation,” does not apply to foreign religious corporations.

Appeal from surrogate’s court, Kings county.

Proceeding for taxation of the estate of Nicholas Bailéis under the transfer tax act. From an order assessing the tax, certain legatees appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, J J.

John R. Kuhn, for appellants.

James W. Ridgway and Robert B. Bach, for respondent.

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the surrogate of Kings county imposing a tax upon the transfer of certain property under the will of Nicholas Bailéis, deceased. By Ms last will and testament the deceased gave the residue of his property, excepting his library and certain vestments and furniture, to the college and schools of St. Vincent’s abbey, Westmoreland county, Pa., and to the college and schools of SL Mary’s abbey, in Newark, N. J., to be divided among them in equal parts. He gave his library, furniture, and vestments to the Benedictines of Newark. The surrogate decided that the act in relation to transfers of property (chapter 399, Laws 1892) did not extend the privilege of exemption therein allowed to certain religious corporations to corporations other than those created by the laws of this state, and that the legacies to the appellants were subject to the tax. The Order of St. Benedict and the Benedictine Society have appealed, and *262we assume that they are the legatees, although the names are not precisely the same as those given in the surrogate’s findings. The will itself is not in the printed record. The question is whether the legacies are exempted from the operation of the act relating to taxable transfers of property, and the language of the statute under which such exemption is claimed is this:

> “But any property heretofore or hereafter devised or bequeathed to any religious corporation shall be exempted from and not subject to the provisions of this act.”

The legatees are foreign religious corporations, but the order is based upon the theory that foreign corporations are subj'ect to the provisions of the act in question. The exemption clause is conceived in clear and precise terms, and requires no interpretation, and, if it was allowed the full force of its signification, the legacies in question would fall within its operation, and be exempted from the tax. We feel bound, however, by the decision of the court of appeals in Re Prime, 136 N. Y. 360, 32 N. E. 1091, to hold that the legacies are subject to the tax. It was said in the opinion in that case, which was unanimous, as follows:

> “We are of opinion that a statute of a state granting powers and privileges to corporations must, in the absence of plain indications to the contrary, be held to apply only to corporations created by the state, and over which it has the power of visitation and control.”

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs and disbursements. ’ All concur.
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We
hereby consent to the incorporation of our report, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Entravision Communications Corporation, dated February 8, 2002, included
in this Form 10-K into of Univision Communications Inc., the previously filed Registration Statements of Univision Communications Inc. on Form S-8 File Nos. 333-34559, 333-47017,
333-56794 and Form S-3 File No. 333-57712.

|                                    |  |                            |  | 
|----------------------------------- |  | -------------------------- |  | 
|                                    |  | /s/MCGLADREY & PULLEN, LLP |  | 
|                                    |  |                            |  | 
|Pasadena, California
March 26, 2002 |  |                            |  | 
|                                    |  |                            |  | 
|                                    |  |                            |  | 

---

QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT
31.1(** **a)**
  **CERTIFICATION
OF CO-CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**
 **OF
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  I, Lee
Wiskowski, certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB of Capital Growth Systems,
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;
  3. 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;
  4. 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)) 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) 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
  (c) Disclosed
in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent
fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial
reporting; and
  5. 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 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: May 4, 2005
    By:
    /s/ Lee WiskowskiLee WiskowskiCo-chief Executive
    Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.1** **CERTIFICATION    BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER (SOX 906)**     The certification below is being submitted to the Securities and    Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with    Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the    United States Code.     In my capacity as chief executive officer of Ingram Micro Inc.,    I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, Ingram Micro    Inc.’s annual report on    Form 10-K    for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2007 as filed with    the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof fully    complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information    contained in such report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of    Ingram Micro Inc. */s/  Gregory    M. E. Spierkel***    Name:     Gregory M. E. Spierkel     Title:     Chief Executive Officer     Dated:  February 27, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,463,275
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,329,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                    99,875
<INVENTORY>                                  4,455,311
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,465,621
<PP&E>                                       1,505,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                 309,456
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,877,165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        9,415,753
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       148,920
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,312,492
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,877,165
<SALES>                                      6,072,419
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,072,419
<CGS>                                        3,018,248
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,018,248
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,651,065
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             137,477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,838,604)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,838,604)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,838,604)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3436

___________

Alberici Corporation, as Plan *

Administrator for Alberici Companies *

Retirement Plan; *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

*

Gary Davis, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

Intervenor Plaintiff - * District of Missouri.

Appellee, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

v. *

*

Helen E. Davis, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 11, 2007

Filed: June 20, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and BENTON Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri. 

-2-

Helen Davis appeals the district court's1

 award of attorney's fees in favor of

Gary Davis. Because an extended discussion would add nothing to the well-reasoned

order of the district court, we affirm under 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
#### L. F. Petty v. Fleishel & Smith.

A note which omits the word dollars, but inserts the numbers, means dollars. Where a note is payable in currency, and the defendant makes default, it is proper to take judgment for the face of the note in dollars, without a writ of inquiry to find the value of the currency.

Error from Smith. The case was tried before Hon. Reuben A. Reeves, one of the district judges.

The contract is sufficiently set out in the opinion of the court. The defendant having made default, judgment was rendered against the defendant for $461 56. The defendant prosecuted error.

*Tignal W. Jones,*for plaintiff in error,

insisted that the

word dollars was not inserted in the note; it was not a promissory note. (Story on Prom. Notes, §§ 18, 19.) Also that the claim was for. unliquidated damages. (Ricks v. Pinson, 21 Tex., 508; Ward v. Latimer, 2 Tex., 248; Roberts v. Short, 1 Tex., 373.)

*Heaves §■ Douglas,*for defendants in error.

—I. The omission of dollars was immaterial. (Evans v. Steele, 2 Ala., R. S., 114; Mason v. McLaughlin, 16 Tex., 24.)

*170II. The judgment for default was proper. (Watson v. Newton, 17 Tex., 437; Guest v. Rhine, 16 Tex., 550; Willard v. Conduit, 10 Tex., 214; Swift v. Farriss, 11 Tex., 19; Long v. Wortham, 4 Tex., 382; Hall v. Jackson, 3 Tex., 305; Ricks v. Pinson, 21 Tex., 508; Trabue v. Stonum, 20 Tex., 454.) Hence they renew the suggestion óf delay.

Latimer, J.

—This is a suit based upon a note for four hundred and nine T6^-, in currency. Judgment by default.

Defendants contend that as the word dollars was not mentioned in the note, although the pleadings alleged the mistake in its omission, yet, as there was no jury, this could not be proved.

The note as copied is as follows:

“$409 68 cents. By the 1st day of April I promise to pay Fleishel & Smith, or bearer, four hundred and nine T6^-, in currency, for value received. L. F. Petty.

“ Starville, Texas, *January*19, 1866.”

The note, beginning with “ $409 68” cents and proceeding with a promise to pay “ four hundred and nine •IIW” currency, furnishes ample authority to conclude that the sum to be paid was 409 68 cents, or $409 68 in currency.

There is no error in the judgment, and it is

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louis Valente, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.), rendered April 5, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In view of the defendant’s competent responses to the trial court’s inquiries as well as the testimony of two psychiatrists to the effect that he was fit to proceed, the record provides an ample basis upon which to conclude that the defendant was competent to proceed at the time his guilty plea was entered. The defendant’s application to withdraw the plea was properly denied.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
387 P.2d 1018

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Leonard DANKERT, Appellant.

No. 1398.

Supreme Court of Arizona. In Division.

Dec. 31, 1963.

Robert W. Pickrell, Atty. Gen., and Charles N. Ronan, County Atty., for appel-lee.

Frank Parascandola, Phoenix, for appellant.

BERNSTEIN, Chief Justice.

Appellant was charged, tried and convicted of lewd and lascivious acts in violation of A.R.S. § 13-652. He was represented by counsel at the trial. He was convicted by a jury on the testimony of the five year old victim, and the testimony of corroborating witnesses.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal in propria persona and other counsel was appointed by the trial court, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-161, to handle his appeal. Counsel for appellant petitioned this court for review of transcript and record on appeal and advised this court by written communication that he had searched the record including the transcript of testimony and *139had been unable to find grounds upon which an appeal could be based.

This court has searched the record, including the transcript of testimony and the instructions given and refused, and can find no fundamental error.

Affirmed.

UDALL, V. C. J, and LOCKWOOD, J., concur.
**Exhibit 10.26**

 

**FIFTH AMENDMENT TO**

**EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

ThisFIFTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “FIFTH AMENDMENT”) is executed December 31,2008, but effective as of January 1, 2005, by and between GeoPetroResources Company, a California corporation (“Company”) and David V. Creel (“Employee”).

 

**RECITALS**

 

A.            Company and Employee are parties tothat certain Employment Agreement dated April 28, 1998 (the “OriginalAgreement”), to that certain First Amendment to Employment Agreement dated June 15,2000, to that certain Second Amendment to Employment Agreement dated May 12,2003, to that certain Third Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated January 1,2005, and to that certain Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated December 29,2008.  The Original Agreement, as amendedthrough and including the Fourth Amendment, is referred to herein as the “Agreement.”

 

B.            The parties hereto now wish to amendthe Agreement as set forth below.

 

NOWTHEREFORE, Company and Employee hereby agree as follows:

 

1.             Amendment of Agreement.  A new sentence is added to the end of Section 15of the Agreement:

 

“If(i) any of Company’s stock is publicly traded on an established securitiesmarket or otherwise, and (ii) if Employee is a “specified employee” (asdefined in Section 409A of the Code), then any payments of deferredcompensation (subject to Section 409A of the Code) under this Agreementwhich are due Employee as a result of a Separation from Service with Companyshall be made six months after the date of such Separation from Service (or, ifearlier, the date of death of Employee).”

 

2.             Integration.  To the extent of any inconsistencies betweenthe terms and conditions of the Agreement as amended prior to the date hereofand those of this Fifth Amendment, this Fifth Amendment shall govern.  Except to the extent that the provisions ofthe Agreement prior to the date hereof are so superseded, they shall remain iffull force and effect.

 

3.             Counterparts.  This Fifth Amendment may be executed in oneor more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of whichtogether shall constitute one instrument.

 

WITNESSWHEREOF, Company and Employee have executed this Fifth Amendment as of the datefirst above written.

 

| GEOPETRO RESOURCES COMPANY |   |            |
|----------------------------|--------|-----------------|
|                       |   |            |
| /s/ Stuart J. Doshi        |   | /s/ David Creel |
| By: Stuart J. Doshi        |   | David V. Creel  |
| Title: President and CEO   |   |            |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Pyramid Breweries Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George
Hancock, Interim Chief Executive Officer of 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 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/ GEORGE HANCOCK


George Hancock
Interim Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2004








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pyramid Breweries Inc. and will be retained by Pyramid Breweries
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-40617 Summary Calendar BRIAN C REESE Plaintiff-Appellant

v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; THR EE RIVERS TEXAS FACILITY; WARDEN JOE DRIVER Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CV-452
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brian C. Reese, federal prisoner # 69187-080, appeals the district court’s denial ofhis 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application. He argues that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has improperly determined that his federal sentences for conspiracy to manufacture 100 grams or more of methamphetamine and po ssession of a firearm by a convicted felon run consecutively to hisstatesentence. The district court did not err by concluding that his federal sentences were to operate United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 3, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-40617

2 consecutively to his state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); Leal v. Tombone , 341 F.3d 427, 427-30 (5th Cir. 2003); Free v. Miles, 333 F.3d 550, 553 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1217 (5th Cir. 1991). Reesealsoargues that he isentitled tocredit against hisfederal sentences for his time served in state custody after the imposition ofhis federal sentences. Reese is not entitled to credit on his federal sentence because the time at issue
was credited toward his state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); Causey v. Civiletti , 621 F.2d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 1980). The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
# C_2021081EN.01000501.xml

| 10.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 81/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 81/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10044 — Mississippi Ventures/Parcom/Hema)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 81/05)

On 27 January 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10044. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10044. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---