alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pallett *v.*Kings County El. Ry. Co.

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

July 18, 1890.)

Elevated Roads.—Contributory Negligence.

In an action against an elevated railway company for the wrongful death of s> painter who was engaged in painting the superstructure when struck by a passing train and killed, it appeared that deceased was in the employ of a company which did the painting, and that he could see an approaching train from where he was at work, and that he was not seen by the engineer or any one on the train. *Reid,*that there could be no recovery.

On exceptions from circuit court, Kings county.

Action by Absalom Pallett, as administrator of Joseph A. Pallett, against the Kings County Elevated Bail way Company, for the wrongful death of deceased. Complaint dismissed. Plaintiff excepts.

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

*Wm. J. Gaynor,*for plaintiff. *Tracy, MacFarland, Ivins, Boardman & Platt,*for defendant.

Dykman, J.

We find nothing in this case to justify a recovery. The deceased was in the employ of a company engaged in painting the superstruct-' *692ure, and, if he was lawfully upon the track, the defendant owed him nó duty, and was under no obligation to regulate the operation of its trains with reference to his presence. The testimony fails to convict the engineer of any failure in duty after the discovery of the deceased upon the track, and in fact there is no proof that he was seen by any person upon the train until he was struck, while it plainly appears that the deceased could see the train for a considerable distance from where he was struck. He was upon a railroad track, and was bound to know that a train might run over it at any time. Other persons upon or around the track made their escape from the incoming train with safety, and it is not apparent why he did not do so likewise. The exceptions cannot therefore be sustained, and the defendant must have judgment dismissing the complaint, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           7,739
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,735
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,739
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,405
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18,996)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (18,996)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18,996)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.19
                           AURORA METALS (BVI) LIMITED

P.O.Box 27494,                                           Telephone: 303-727-8609
Denver, Colorado,                                      Facsimile:   303-936-0333
U.S.A. 80227-0494.                                  E-mail: jaajames@comcast.net
                                                        contact@aurorametals.net

December 17, 2004


Mr. Thomas A. Loucks,
President and CEO,
Trend Mining Company,
5575 South Sycamore Street, Suite 103,
Littleton,
Colorado, USA 80120


Dear Tom,

SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO LETTER OF INTENT - PROPOSED JOINT VENTURE -
STILLWATER COMPLEX, MONTANA

By this letter, Aurora Metals (BVI) Limited (hereafter "AM"), agrees to the
second extension of time under Clause 13. Timing of the Letter of Intent ("LOI")
dated September 20, 2004, until 5.00 pm Mountain Standard Time, Friday, January
14, 2005.

If you are in agreement with this second extension of time to the LOI, please so
indicate by signing where indicated below.


Yours sincerely,
AURORA METALS (BVI) LIMITED

/s/ J.A.A. James
----------------
J.A.A. James
President and Director


Agreed and acknowledged this 17th day of December, 2004 on behalf of Trend
Mining Company:


/s/ Thomas A. Loucks
--------------------
Thomas A. Loucks
President and CEO
#### Antonio COLBERT, Appellant v. Richard CORDRAY, Ohio Attorney General, Appellee.

No. 11-7006.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

March 31, 2011.

Antonio Colbert, Washington, DC, pro se.

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 340). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 8, 2011, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint as frivolous. *See Neitzke v. Williams,*490 *2U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002



I, Corey S. Goodman, hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



(i) the Annual Report of Renovis, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Renovis, Inc.



By:

/s/    Corey S. GoodmanName: Corey S. GoodmanTitle: President and Chief Executive Officer




Dated: March 28, 2005
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001002137
<NAME>                        SWISSRAY INTERNATIONAL INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                             1,157,604
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      2,158,107
<ALLOWANCES>                                       32,998
<INVENTORY>                                        7,359,825
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   12,636,581
<PP&E>                                             7,154,532
<DEPRECIATION>                                     903,911
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     24,975,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              12,636,581
<BONDS>                                            12,228,659
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                           117,114
<OTHER-SE>                                         (3,298,638)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       24,975,298
<SALES>                                            13,220,776
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   13,220,766
<CGS>                                              10,966,488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      10,404,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   10,389,147
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 2,156,457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (9,911,353)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (9,911,353)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (832,849)
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (10,744,202)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (1.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (1.51)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.1**

**Statement Pursuant to Section 906 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002By Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer Regarding Facts and Circumstances Relating to Exchange Act Filings**

          We, David C. Collins and Gary R. Wright, certify that the periodic report, to which this Statement is attached, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report to which this Statement is attached, fairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theregistrant.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Statement as of the date first written above.

| Dated August 6, 2002 |                       |
|----------------------|----------------------------|
|                 |                       |
|                 | /s/  David C. Collins |
|                 |                            |   |
|                 | David C. Collins           |
|                 | Chief Executive Officer    |
|                 |                       |
|                 |                       |
|                 | /s/  Gary R. Wright   |
|                 |                            |   |
|                 | Gary R. Wright             |
|                 | Chief Financial Officer    |
# Request Records through the Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act

**Alert:** To respond to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Privacy Act (PA) request as quickly as possible, we will stop accepting requests by fax or email on Dec. 16, 2022. We strongly encourage you to use our online FOIA request and response service.

**Submit FOIA Requests Online**

Our online FOIA service has several advantages:
                      - Send your FOIA or PA request to us instantly;
                      - Track the progress of your FOIA or PA request;
                      - Receive our response as soon as it is ready; and
                      - Download records whenever you need them.

**Submit FOIA Requests from Your Software**

If you create or send FOIA requests to USCIS through additional software and would like to continue doing so, we now offer an application programming interface (API).

Ask your software developer to visit the USCIS Torch API Platform site to learn more.

Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act (PA), you can request:
                - Your own immigration records;
                - Someone else’s immigration records, if you have their written permission; and
                - Agency policies, data, communications, and other records

**How to Request and Receive Records as Quickly as Possible**

**Step 1:** Read this entire page, to ensure you request records the right way, from the right agency.

**Step 2:** Confirm we have not already posted the records you need in the USCIS Electronic Reading Room.

**Step 3:** Try to request only the specific documents you need. We can process requests for precise records much faster than requests for an entire file.

**Step 4:**Make your FOIA request online to avoid mailing, paper processing, and returned mail that could make it take much longer to process your request. You can also use this service to receive records online, if you already submitted a request by mail. See the chart below.

**Step 5:**Check the status of your request online. We will email you to check your account when your files are ready to download.

12/09/2022

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
(9 Misc. Rep. 215.)

#### HOWARD v. MOLLER.

(City Court of New York, General Term.

June 20, 1894.)

Negotiable Instruments—Consideration—Question for Jury.

Where plaintiff acquired title to the note sued on after maturity, and defendant claims that he made the note for the accommodation of the payee, hut his evidence is contradictory, the question as to the consideration of the note should be submitted to the jury.

Appeal from trial term.

Action by John Howard against John A. Holler. From a judgment entered on a verdict directed by the court in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before NEWBURGER, FITZSIHONS, and CORLAN, JJ,

*600Johnston & Johnston, for appellant.

John R. Farrar, for respondent.

CONLAN, J.

This action was commenced against the defendant as maker of a promissory note. The complaint alleges the making of the note payable to Russell Bros., before maturity, and for value; also demand, and nonpayment by the maker. The answer denies the making of the note as alleged, and its ownership for value by the plaintiff, and alleges that the note was made to one Michael McMunn, who was doing business as Russell Bros., as an accommodation, and to enable him to gain an extension of credit where he was then indebted, and upon a promise by said McMunn (who was the Russell Bros, named as payees in the note) that he would in about a week return said note to defendant, and that the plaintiff had knowledge of this understanding. The evidence of the plaintiff is as follows:

> “I had no interest in, nor did I become the owner of, this note, until after it was protested.”

The evidence of the defendant is to the effect that the note in question was one of a series of three notes made about February 20th, of same year, to the order of Russell Bros., payable in two, three, and four months, the note in suit being the last of said series. That he was induced to make said notes for the accommodation of the said McMunn. That at the same time the said McMunn executed a receipt to the effect that the notes in question were for rent of a portion of premises Nos. 149, 151, and 153 Leonard street The defendant testified:

> “The rent was to be paid with the work I should receive from McMunn, as far as these notes were concerned. I did not agree to pay it with these notes. I only loaned him the notes, and he put them for rent We agreed that the rent should he paid in work.”

The testimony of the defendant is somewhat confusing and contradictory, but we think the question of actual consideration, the plaintiff not being a bona fide holder before maturity, should have been submitted to the jury. I am of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Reginald Carter, Respondent.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.), dated July 8, 1986, which granted that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and statements.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

That branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence was properly granted. The arresting officers proceeded to the intersection in question in response to a radio call advising that four black males, wearing hats, were possibly selling drugs at that location. Upon their arrival, the officers observed three males on one corner of the intersection and the defendant standing alone on another corner. There was no evidence that any of the persons observed by the police were wearing hats. The defendant appeared to be peering around the corner. A marked police van which was already in the area turned and headed toward the intersection. The defendant, thereupon, took three steps back from the corner, placed a black bag in a doorway located approximately five feet from the corner, and returned to the corner. At that point, the officers left their car and approached the defendant from behind. At least one of the officers had his gun drawn. The defendant was ordered to stop, and one officer forcibly placed him against the wall while the other officer examined the black bag, which was still in the doorway and only 1 or 2 feet from where the defendant was standing. The officer reached inside the bag and found a loaded handgun.

Clearly, the radio report of possible drug sales by four black males wearing hats did not justify the seizure of the defendant, who was standing alone, wore no hat and did not otherwise fit the description. Moreover, the innocuous and *231equivocal behavior observed by the police officers did not constitute specific and articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was at hand so as to justify the seizure of the defendant *(see, Terry v Ohio,*392 US 1; *People v Mosley,*68 NY2d 881, *rearg denied*69 NY2d 707, *cert denied*— US —, 107 S Ct 3185; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210; *People v Cantor,*36 NY2d 106).

Nor did the People prove that the defendant intended to abandon the bag, which was opened by the police without his consent, searched and found to contain contraband *(see, People v Howard,*50 NY2d 583, 593, *cert denied*449 US 1023). The defendant did not discard or otherwise rid himself of the bag. Rather, he simply put it down in the doorway and remained not more than five feet away. This conduct is not indicative of an intention to abandon the bag *(see, People v Howard, supra,*at 593).

Finally, the defendant’s statements, which were the direct product of the unlawful police conduct, were properly suppressed *(see Dunaway v New York,*442 US 200; *Brown v Illinois,*422 US 590; *Wong Sun v United States,*371 US 471). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, James A. Rotherham, C.P.A., Chief Financial Officer of Kintera, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Dated: March 16, 2005



|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ James A. Rotherham                                                          
|James A. Rotherham, C.P.A. Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
# L_2010099EN.01000701.xml

| 21.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 99/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 99/7

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL

of 26 March 2010

appointing the Vice-President of the European Central Bank

(2010/223/EU)

THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 283(2) and 139(2)(h) thereof, and having regard to Articles 11.2 and 42.3 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank,

Having regard to the Recommendation of the Council (1),

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (2),

Having regard to the Opinion of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (3),

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Mr Vítor CONSTÂNCIO is hereby appointed Vice-President of the European Central Bank for a term of office of 8 years.

This appointment takes effect from 1 June 2010.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 26 March 2010.

For the European Council

The President

H. VAN ROMPUY

---

(1)  
  OJ C 52, 2.3.2010, p. 1.

1

(2)  Opinion delivered on 25 March 2010 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

2

(3)  
  OJ C 58, 10.3.2010, p. 3.

3

---
#### In the Matter of Oswaldo Carreras, Petitioner, v Walter Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

— Determination unanimously annulled on the law and petition granted *(see, Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*125 AD2d 923, *Iv granted*69 NY2d 608). (Article 78 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.