alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Stephens v. Humphreys *et al.*

*(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.*

June 6, 1890.)

Right to Jury Trial.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, defendant is not entitled, as a matter of right, to a trial by jury of a defense of fraud.

Appeal from special term, New York county.

Action by Melville Stephens against Robert L. Humphreys, impleaded. From an order denying a motion for an order settling issues to be tried by a jury, defendant appeals.

Argued before Van Brunt, P. J., and Brady and Daniels, JJ.

*John K. Van Mess,*for appellant. *Smith*<6 *White,*for respondent.

Van Brunt, P. J.

This action was brought by the' plaintiff, as assignee, to foreclose a mortgage. The answer set up fraud in obtaining the assignment, and that the plaintiff had not obtained it in good faith, and is not the real party in interest, and that the assignment was obtained by threats and intimidation. On the hearing of the motion the learned justice allowed the plaintiff to read certain affidavits controverting the allegations set up in the answer. The appellants objected to the reading of these affidavits, on the ground that the motion should be decided on the pleadings alone. The court refused to direct issues to be settled to be tried by a jury, and from the order thereupon entered this appeal is taken.

AIt was probably error upon the part of the court to allow the reading of affidavits upon this motion; but this in no way affected the rights of the defendant. It is claimed that, because the answer set up fraud, intimidation, false representations, champerty, and maintenance, the defendant, as matter of right, was entitled to have those issues tried by a jury; and we are cited, as an authority upon this proposition, to the case of *Conderman*v. *Conderman,*44 Hun, 181, in which it was decided that a party had the right to have the issue of adultery in an action for divorce tried by a jury. We fail to see the application of this case, as by the express provisions of the Code a party is, as matter of right, entitled to have that issue tried by a jury; but our attention has not been called to any provision of the Code entitling a party, simply because he sets up the defense of fraud, as matter of right, to a trial of that issue by a jury. The case cited, clearly, has no application to the facts herein presented, and there seems to be no reason whatever why the usual course should not be pursued, and this action tried by the court. The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.
<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 Annual Report of First Acceptance Corporation on Form
10-K for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on September 12, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Stephen J.
Harrison, Chief Executive Officer of First Acceptance Corporation, 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 results of operations
            of the Company.

/s/ STEPHEN J. HARRISON
-------------------------------------
Stephen J. Harrison
Chief Executive Officer
September 13, 2005
Exhibit 21.1



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF HARBOR GLOBAL COMPANY LTD.



SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                        |  |              
|------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------
|Company:                                                |  | Jurisdiction:
|Harbor Global II Ltd.                                   |  | Bermuda      
|HGC Ltd.                                                |  | Bermuda      
|HGCL Ltd.                                               |  | Bermuda      
|PREA, Inc.                                              |  | Delaware     
|PREA, L.L.C.                                            |  | Delaware     
|Pioglobal Goldfields II Limited                         |  | Guernsey     
|Closed Joint-Stock Company Pioneer Investments        |  | Russia       
|Pioglobal Omega, L.L.C.                                 |  | Delaware     
|Luscinia, L.L.C.                                        |  | Delaware     
|Theta Enterprises, L.L.C.                               |  | Delaware     
|PIOGLOBAL Real Estate Investment Fund                   |  | Russia       
|Pioglobal First Russia, LLC                             |  | Delaware     
|Closed Joint-Stock Company PIOGLOBAL Services         |  | Russia       
|Closed Joint-Stock Company PIOGLOBAL Asset Management |  | Russia       
|Closed Joint-Stock Company Pioneer Securities         |  | Russia       
|PIOGlobal Corporation                                   |  | Delaware     
|Maltica Investments Ltd.                                |  | Cyprus       
|Anabasis Enterprises Ltd.                               |  | Cyprus       
|PGAM Ltd.                                               |  | Cyprus       
|PIOGLOBAL AM                                            |  | BVI
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

TERRELL BYARD, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

TREVOR WINGARD, ET AL., 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 113 EM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 1st day of September, 2016, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
#### DELANEY, Respondent, v. VALENTINE et al., Appellants (three cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

December 8, 1896.)

Actions by William J. Delaney, as receiver, etc., against Thomas B. Valentine and others. Walter P. Butler and Edgar T. Brackett, for appellants. W. A. Pierson (A. W. Shepherd, of counsel), for respondent.

PARKER, P. J.

I cannot discover any question in this case that was not decided by the general term on the former appeal. See 80 Hun, 476, 30 N. Y. Supp. 512. The law as then laid down fully sustains the conclusions of the trial judge in the record before us. It is not the province of this court to review the decisions of that court. Being controlled by that decision, therefore, I conclude that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. Judgment in each of the cases affirmed, with costs. All concur,, except PUTNAM, J., not acting. See 42 N. Y. Supp. 335, 571.
exv10w5xay






Exhibit 10.5(a)



June 9, 2009


AAA Capital Management Inc.

1300 Post Oak Blvd. #350

Houston, Texas 77056


Attention: Mr. Anthony Annunziato



	 	Re:	 	 Management Agreement Renewal





Dear Mr. Annunziato:


We are writing with respect to your management agreement concerning the commodity pools to which
reference is made below (the “Management Agreement”). We are extending the term of the Management
Agreement through June 30, 2010 and all other provisions of the Management Agreement will remain
unchanged.





	 	•	 	Smith Barney AAA Energy Fund L.P.
	 	•	 	Citigroup AAA Energy Fund L.P. II
	 	•	 	Citigroup AAA Master Fund LLC
	 	•	 	Citigroup Orion Futures Fund L.P.
	 	•	 	Citigroup Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 	•	 	CMF Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P.
	 	•	 	Legion Strategies LLC
	 	•	 	Citigroup Energy Advisors Portfolio L.P.
	 	•	 	Citigroup Global Futures Fund LTD
	 	•	 	Citigroup Orion Futures Fund (Cayman) LTD.





Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it
to the attention of Ms. Jennifer Magro at the address above or fax to 212-793-1986. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-559-5046.



Very truly yours,



CITIGROUP MANAGED FUTURES LLC




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:  	/s/  Jennifer Magro
 	 	 
	 	Jennifer Magro 	 	 
	 	Chief Financial Officer & Director 	 	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	AAA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT INC.

 	 
	By:  	/s/  Anthony Annunziato
 	 	 
	 
	Print Name:  	 Anthony Annunziato 	 	 
	 
	JM/sr
#### MITCHELL et al. v. ARCHER.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Action by George A. Mitchell and others against Samuel Archer.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and CULLEN, J.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Antonio Pabon, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from five sentences of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), all imposed October 3, 1985.

Ordered that the sentences are affirmed *(see, People v Kazepis,*101 AD2d 816). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of Q.E.P. Co., Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending
February 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard A. Brooke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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/ Richard A. Brooke                            
|Richard A. Brooke                                
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

May 29, 2009
#### Royce *et al. v.*Adams.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

July 18, 1890.)

Administrator with the Will Annexed—Power to Sell Land.

Where a will empowers the executors, “or whoever shall execute this my will,” to sell testator’s real and personal estate, an administrator with the will annexed can give a valid deed of the realty.

Case submitted on agreed statement.

Action by William B. Boyce and others, administrators *c. t. a.*of Henry B. Low, to compel defendant, Jennie C. T. Adams, to accept a deed of land formerly belonging to testator, and to pay the purchase price.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*William J. Groo,*for plaintiffs. *Alton J. Vail,*for defendant.

Dykman, J.

The question for determination in this action is whether the administrators with the will annexed, who are also the trustees substituted in the place of the executors of the last will and testament, of Henry B. Low, deceased, can give a good title to the real property of which he died seised. The language is this: *“Second.*I hereby nominate and appoint my father-in-law, John D. Watkins, and my sons, Bussell T. and John W. Low, executors, and my wife, Mary C. Low, executrix, of this my last will and testament, hereby empowering my said executors and executrix, or whoever shall execute this my will, to sell, lease, or otherwise Convey or dispose of any and all my real and personal estate and effects, and to give good title thereto, without lien, charge, or incumbrance of any kind upon the same, either for cash or on credit, or both.” This language annexes the power of sale to the office of executor, and no personal confidence in the discretion of the person ‘named is either expressed or implied. The power of sale is bestowed upon the executors and executrix, or whosoever shall execute the will. Under such circumstances an administrator with the will annexed takes the power of the original executors, and the power or trust may be executed by them. *Bain*v. *Matteson,*54 N. Y. 663. The same rule applies to the administra*822tors in their character of substituted trustees. *Farrar*v. *McCue,*89 N. Y. 140. Judgment in favor of the plaintiff should therefore be rendered upon the demurrer. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2161 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2161

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend for one year the 
   enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    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 
   enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ENHANCED CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS 
              OF FOOD INVENTORY.

    (a) In General.--Clause (iv) of section 170(e)(3)(C) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``December 31, 
2014'' and inserting ``December 31, 2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to contributions made after December 31, 2014.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2023140EN.01008601.xml

| 21.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/86 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/86

---

Corrigendum to Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on asset recovery and confiscation’ (COM(2022) 245 — final)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 100 of 16 March 2023
  )

(2023/C 140/16)

On page 108:

| for: | ‘2. General and specific comments’, |
| --- | --- |

for:

‘2. General and specific comments’,

| read: | ‘3. General and specific comments’. |
| --- | --- |

read:

read:

‘3. General and specific comments’.

---
**Exhibit 10.19**

**Written Description of Oral Modifications to Offer of Employment Letter between Design**

**WithinReach, Inc. and Tara Poseley**

Effective upon October 1, 2005, Tara Poseley was elected President and Chief Executive Officer of Design WithinReach, Inc. (the “Company”) by the Board of Directors. In connection with that election, the following terms of the Offer of Employment Letter dated June 1, 2004 between the Company and Tara Poseley were amended: 

1.    Tara Poseley shall have the position of President and Chief Executive Officer. 

2.    If Ms. Poseley’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause (and not as a result of death or disability), and if she signs a general release of known and unknown claimsin form satisfactory to the Company, she will receive severance payments at her final base salary rate, less applicable withholding, for a period of 12 months following the date of her termination without cause. Severance payments will be made inaccordance with the Company’s normal payroll procedures. In the event that such termination without cause occurs within one year following any Change of Control (as defined in the June 1, 2004 offer letter) (and Ms. Poseley signs therelease of claims described above), in addition to receiving the severance payments described above, her unvested Company stock options will immediately vest in full.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2645 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to prevent the Thrift Savings Fund 

from investing in any company that boycotts Israel. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2015 

Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to prevent the Thrift 

Savings Fund from investing in any company that boycotts Israel. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON INVESTMENT OF THE THRIFT 

4 SAVINGS FUND. 

5 Section 8438 of title 5, United States Code, is 

6 amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(i)(I) Notwithstanding any other 

8 provision of law, no amounts may be in9 vested under this section in any company 

10 that boycotts Israel. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2645 IH

1 ‘‘(II) In this clause— 

2 ‘‘(aa) the term ‘boycotts Israel’ 

3 means engaging in actions that are 

4 politically motivated and are intended 

5 to penalize, inflict economic harm on, 

6 or otherwise limit commercial rela7 tions with Israel or companies based 

8 in Israel or in territories controlled by 

9 Israel; and 

10 ‘‘(bb) the term ‘company’ means 

11 any sole proprietorship, organization, 

12 association, corporation, partnership, 

13 joint venture, limited partnership, lim14 ited liability partnership, limited li15 ability company, or other entity or 

16 business association, including all 

17 wholly owned subsidiaries, majority18 owned subsidiaries, parent countries 

19 or affiliates of those entities or busi20 ness associations, that exist for the 

21 purpose of making profit.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### BLISS et al. v. FOSDICK et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

May 18, 1894.)

Action by George Bliss and others against Charles B. Fosdick and others.

Argued before O’BRIEN, FOLLETT, and PARKER, JJ.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. See 24 N. Y. Supp. 939; 27 N. Y. Supp. 1053.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       3,875,212
<SECURITIES>                                26,149,323
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            21,702,372
<PP&E>                                          73,141
<DEPRECIATION>                                  35,471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,085,008
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,222,442
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          142,993
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,357,352
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,362,221
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,085,008
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               431,902
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  379,369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,533
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,533
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    52,533
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Petsec Energy Ltd, an Australian public limited liability
company (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the
"Report") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 28, 2005

Name:  Terrence Norman Fern
Title: Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report
or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by section 906 has been
provided to Petsec Energy Ltd and will be retained by Petsec Energy Ltd and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marquez Mack, Appellant.

[946 NYS2d 915]

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered June 4, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [b]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to County Court’s suppression ruling *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]; *People v Velardi,*93 AD3d 1238, 1239 [2012]). The waiver also encompasses defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence *(see Lopez,*6 NY3d at 255; *see generally People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Carni, Lindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.