alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re GOLDBERG.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

July 13, 1894.)

1. Attorney and Client—Misconduct op Attorney.

An attorney is guilty of professional misconduct where he alters an-undertaking which had been used on an unsuccessful application for art-attachment, and uses it, as altered, on an application to another court.

2. Same—Punishment—Suspension prom Practice.

Where the attorney was young and inexperienced, he will not be disbarred for such misconduct, but will he suspended from practice for a-substantial period.

Proceeding to disbar E. Townsend Goldberg, an attorney at law.

Argued before FOLLETT and BARRETT, JJ.

Frederick S. Wait, designated by the court.

George W. Stephens, for Goldberg.

PER CURIAM.

In this matter the court finds as a fact that the-attorney altered the undertaking which was used upon the unsuccessful application to the presiding justice, and thereafter, without procuring it to be re-executed or reaclmowledged, used such altered'. *973undertaking upon an application for an attachment to a judge of the court of common pleas. Upon this fact, without passing upon ■the other charges, the court adjudges that the attorney was guilty •of professional misconduct. As to the measure of punishment, while it is undoubtedly a case for discipline, it is not, in view of the attorney’s youth and inexperience, a case for the extreme penalty •of disbarment. That would wreck this young man’s entire life. When he fell he had been admitted to the bar less than a year. He lias yet ample time to redeem himself, and he should be afforded the opportunity to do so. He will be sufficiently punished, and the honor of the profession vindicated, by judgment of suspension for ■a substantial period. The court leaves him the hope of redemption, and an incentive to work for its realization. The judgment is that the attorney be suspended from practice for two years.
(77 Hun, 311.)

#### NORDLINGER v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

April 13, 1894.)

Evidence—Fact on Opinion.

A question as to whether a structure in front of premises occupied by witness “cuts off any light” from the premises calls for a fact, and not an opinion.

Appeal from judgment on report of referee.

Action by Jacob D. Nordlinger against the Manhattan Railway Company and the Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company. From a judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits, with costs, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and FOLLETT and PARKER, JJ.

E. W. Tyler and E. A. Hibbard, for appellant.

Julien T. Davies and Sherrill Babcock, for respondents.

PARKER, J.

The purpose of this suit was to procure an injunction enjoining the defendants from the maintenance of their elevated railway in front of plaintiff’s premises, and also to obtain, as incidental to the decree of injunction, an assessment of the past injuries to the rental value. A station of the defendants is situated at the corner of Forty-Second street and Second avenue, and the platform of the station extends the full length of the building. The issues presented by the pleadings were referred to *362-a referee to hear and determine. After the hearing, he determined that the plaintiff had not been injured by defendants’ station, a,nd ‘dismissed the complaint. Among the findings of fact upon which -he based his conclusions of law was the following:

“No substantial interference with the air or light of said premises has been shown to result directly from the maintenance of the railway structure of ■the defendants in said avenue.”

But that is what the plaintiff apparently attempted, although ■ineffectually, to prove. A tenant in the building in question being ■under examination, the plaintiff asked him:

“Q. Now, then, will you state whether or not this platform in front of .your store cuts off any light from the front part of the store? The question is whether any more light would come to it if that structure and station was ■not there, or if the light is cut off by it. (Objected to by defendants’ counsel, on the ground that it calls for an opinion of the witness upon a state of facts that does not exist. The referee sustained the objection, and counsel ■for the plaintiff duly excepted.)”

The objection was not well taken. The question called for a fact. Whether an awning or an elevated railway platform overhanging ■a window “will cut off any light” is a fact easily within the grasp of the average intellect. As the error is one calling for reversal, we need not discuss the other, exceptions to which our attention Tías been called. The judgment should be reversed, with costs to the appellant, to abide the event. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5867 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5867

  To amend title 23, United States Code, to authorize States to allow 
   vehicles operated by members of the Armed Forces, law enforcement 
 officers, and emergency response personnel to use HOV facilities, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2010

   Mr. Nye introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 23, United States Code, to authorize States to allow 
   vehicles operated by members of the Armed Forces, law enforcement 
 officers, and emergency response personnel to use HOV facilities, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Military Personnel Readiness Act of 
2010''.

SEC. 2. HOV FACILITIES.

    (a) In General.--Section 166(b) of title 23, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(6) Vehicles operated by members of the armed forces, law 
        enforcement officers, and emergency response personnel.--
                    ``(A) In general.--A State agency may allow a 
                vehicle to use the HOV facility if the vehicle is 
                operated by an individual who is--
                            ``(i) a member of the Armed Forces serving 
                        on active duty;
                            ``(ii) a law enforcement officer; or
                            ``(iii) serving in a position as emergency 
                        response personnel.
                    ``(B) Implementation.--A State may take such 
                actions as may be necessary to carry out the exception 
                set forth in this paragraph, including establishing 
                eligibility requirements for vehicle operators and 
                providing for the badging of vehicles.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 166(b)(1) of such title is 
amended by striking ``(5)'' and inserting ``(6)''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTS OF TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON MILITARY READINESS.

    (a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study on the 
effects of traffic congestion on military readiness in metropolitan 
areas with a high concentration of military personnel.
    (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Comptroller General shall transmit to Congress a report 
on the results of the study.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited financial statements of Wireless Data Solutions, Inc. and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1997
<CASH>                                          42,376
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  649,496
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    189,208
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               881,080
<PP&E>                                          27,927
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,326,435
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          535,708
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,165
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,326,435
<SALES>                                        411,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               432,633
<CGS>                                          246,638
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  217,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 360
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (40,809)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,666)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (37,143)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (37,143)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Contact Public Engagement

## Find an Engagement Near You

USCIS has community relations specialists located throughout the country. If you are interested in participating in engagement opportunities or would like to learn more about ouroutreach activities, please send an email to the appropriate email addresses below.

We will not respond to case-specific questions or offer legal advice. If you have case-specific questions, please refer to the Contact Us page or use our self-service tools.

Subscribe to get notifications:

Get Updates by Email
e.g. name@email.com

Please email public.engagement@uscis.dhs.gov to:
                - Ask questions about national engagements;
                - Offer feedback on previous engagements;
                - Request a meeting or engagement with agency leadership; or
                - Provide general feedback and suggestions.

## Intergovernmental Affairs

For questions specific to state, local, tribal, territorial and other federal government partners, please email:
                - USCIS-IGAOutreach@uscis.dhs.gov

## T/ U/ VAWA Training

To receive information or request training regarding the immigration options for victims of trafficking, domestic violence, and certain other crimes, please email:
                - T_U_VAWATraining@uscis.dhs.gov

08/30/2023

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
# Affirmative Action Plan for the Recruitment, Hiring, Advancement, and Retention of Persons with Disabilities

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Management Directive 715-01 (MD-715) requires federal agencies to report on their efforts to establish and maintain an effective equal employment opportunity (EEO) program that ensures equal employment opportunities for all employees and applicants for employment, regardless of:
                - Sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation);
                - Age;
                - Race;
                - National origin;
                - Color;
                - Religion;
                - Disability status;
                - Protected genetic information (such as medical conditions or family medical history); and
                - Prior EEO activities.

Under 29 C.F.R. §1614.203(e), agencies must report to the Commission their affirmative action plan (PDF, 371.32 KB) for persons with disabilities and persons with targeted disabilities, and describe how their plan will improve the recruitment, hiring, advancement, and retention of these applicants.

## Reasonable Accommodation Procedures and Personal Assistance Services

Agencies must prominently post their reasonable accommodation procedures (PDF, 312.17 KB) for processing disability accommodation requests from employees and applicants under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(3)(i). USCIS processes requests for personal assistance services for employees with targeted disabilities pursuant to these procedures, as well as 29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(d)(5) and the guidance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

### Contact Information

                - For general questions about EEO, call the Office Equal Opportunity and Inclusion at 202-587-9907.
                - For EEO complaints, call 866-860-8885 or email  cis-oeoi-crd@uscis.dhs.gov .
                - For disability accommodations, call 855-591-7958 or email  disabilityaccommodations@uscis.dhs.gov .
                - For the Special Emphasis Program, call 202-587-9907 or email  diversityandinclusion@uscis.dhs.gov .

02/06/2024

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
----

Exhibit 99.3

Summary of Guaranty Contract of Maximum Amount ( the"Contract") Entered into by and between Xiangqian Li(the "Guarantor") and Shenzhen Caitian Branch, Bank of Communications (the "Creditor") on June 28,2010 

Main contents: 

-  Guaranty Contract number:  4431702010B100000401; Xiangqian Li  undertakes to assume joint and several liabilities for Shenzhen BAK Battery  Co., Ltd (the "Obligor")’s indebtedness towards Bank of Communications under  the Comprehensive Credit Facility Agreement of Maximum Amount (reference no.:  4431702010LE00000400) from June 28, 2010 to June 28, 2011, and the maximum  amount secured is RMB 50 million. **Guaranty  Responsibility**: The guaranty under this Contract shall be guaranty with  joint and several liabilities. The guarantor is obligated to pay off the debt  in the event the obligor is unable to pay off the debt (including the creditor  declares the debt becomes mature in advance to its original expiry date due to  default of the obligor or the guarantor). **Scope of  Guaranty:**The guaranty shall cover all of the loan principal, interest,  penalty interest, breach of contract compensation, damages, undertaking fee  and all the expenses such as litigation cost, lawyer’s fee, notification cost  and public notice cost etc. which is incurred to the Creditor in realizing its  creditor’s right. **Guaranty  period:** The guaranty period is from the effective date of this Contract to  two years after the expiry of the term of the Credit Facility Agreement and  relevant agreement entered into under the Credit Facility Agreement. **Headlines of the articles omitted:**-  Payment on demand Declaration and guaranty of the Guarantor  Obligations of the Guarantor Agreement of Bank Sequestrate Deposits  Disputation settlement Supplement articles
IB 

House Calendar No. 234 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5773 

[Report No. 111–592] 

To designate the Federal building located at 6401 Security Boulevard in 

Baltimore, Maryland, as the ‘‘Robert M. Ball Federal Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 19, 2010 

Mr. CUMMINGS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 

Additional sponsors: Mr. BARTLETT, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Mr. 

SARBANES, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. KRATOVIL, Mr. LEVIN, and Mr. POMEROY

SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 

Reported with amendments, referred to the House Calendar, and ordered to 

be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5773 RH

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 6401 Security 

Boulevard in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ‘‘Robert M. 

Ball Federal Building’’. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5773 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 6401 Security Boule5 vard in Baltimore, Maryland, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Robert M. Ball Federal Building’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

10 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

11 a reference to the ‘‘Robert M. Ball Federal Building’’. 

12 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

13 The Federal building located at 6401 Security Boule14 vard in Baltimore, Maryland, commonly known as the So15 cial Security Administration Operations Building, shall be 

16 known and designated as the ‘‘Robert M. Ball Federal 

17 Building’’. 

18 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

19 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

20 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

21 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a 

22 reference to the ‘‘Robert M. Ball Federal Building’’. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to designate 

the Federal building located at 6401 Security Boulevard 

in Baltimore, Maryland, commonly known as the Social 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 5773 RH

Security Administration Operations Building, as the 

‘Robert M. Ball Federal Building’.’’. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 234 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5773 

[Report No. 111–592] 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 6401 

the ‘‘Robert M. Ball Federal Building’’. Security Boulevard in Baltimore, Maryland, as 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 

Reported with amendments, referred to the House 

Calendar, and ordered to be printed 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
# USCIS Updates Guidance on Employment Authorization for E and L Nonimmigrant Spouses

03/18/2022

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is updating guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to address the documentation that certain E and L nonimmigrant spouses may use as evidence of employment authorization based on their nonimmigrant status.

On Nov. 12, 2021, USCIS issued a policy announcement to clarify that we will consider E and L spouses to be employment authorized based on their valid E or L nonimmigrant status. Since the November 2021 announcement, the Department of Homeland Security added new Class of Admission (COA) codes to distinguish between E and L spouses and children.

As of Jan. 30, 2022, USCIS and CBP began issuing Forms I-94 with the following new COA codes for certain E and L spouses: E-1S, E-2S, E-3S, and L-2S. An unexpired Form I-94 reflecting one of these new codes is acceptable as evidence of employment authorization for spouses under List C of Form I-9.

If you are an E or L spouse age 21 or over who has an unexpired Form I-94 that USCIS issued before Jan. 30, 2022, we will mail you a notice beginning on or about April 1, 2022. This notice, along with an unexpired Form I-94 reflecting E-1, E-2, E-3, E-3D, E-3R, or L-2 nonimmigrant status, will serve as evidence of employment authorization. If you are an E or L spouse and under 21, or if you have not received your notice by April 30, email E-L-married-U21@uscis.dhs.gov to request a notice.

We will only send notices to individuals identified as qualifying spouses based on a Form I-539 approved by USCIS. Individuals who received their Form I-94 from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) should visit www.cbp.gov.

Visit the Policy Manual for Comment page to comment on this update.

03/18/2022

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Richard LaBarbera, 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 Kintera, Inc. (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 29, 2007

|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|/s/ Richard LaBarbera                                                                
|Richard LaBarbera President and Chief
Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of IWT Tesoro Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Forrest P. Jordan,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Dated:  April 15, 2005 | /s/Forrest  P. Jordan    |   |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                        | Forrest  P. Jordan       |
|                        | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

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

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

April 29, 2016

t0426 

# Order

Clerk April 29, 2016

152519

DENISE FOWLER, as Next Friend of

VIRGINIA JANE RAWLUSZKI,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152519

COA: 310890

Bay CC: 11

- 003317

- NO

MENARD, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 15, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the application or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).

Th e parties shall file supplemental briefs within 42 days o f the date of this order

includ ing, among the issues to be briefed, whether the crosswalk installed by the

defendant had a special aspect that could create liability for even an open and obvious

haza rd, and whether such a special aspect can exist if the condition is not unreasonably

dangerous. See Hoffner v Lanctoe , 492 Mich 450, 455 (2012); Lugo v Ameritech Corp,

Inc, 464 Mich 512, 517 (2001). The parties should not submit mere restatements of their

application papers.