alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Collins Tuttle and Company, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v Leucadia, Inc., et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered on May 6, 1988, which granted plaintiff’s motion to reargue and, upon reargument, adhered to its prior order, to the extent of dismissing the amended complaint as against defendant Joseph S. Steinberg and denying dismissal of the fourth cause of action, and amended its prior order, to the extent of dismissing the first, second and third causes of action against the corporate defendants for failure to state a cause of action and dismissing the amended complaint as against defendant Adrienne Bernstein for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of limiting plaintiff’s recovery in quasi-contract to the value of services rendered in preparation of the setup and striking so much of the fifth decretal paragraph as permits a right to recovery of one half of the brokerage commission and, except as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

The essential facts of this matter are not in dispute. Plaintiff served as the renting agent for the premises known as 315 Park Avenue South, New York, New York, and prepared a brochure, known as a "setup,” describing the premises. It was compiled from information supplied by the corporate defen*527dants and was periodically updated by plaintiff. In early 1984, the corporate defendants obtained a copy of the latest version of the setup, which they gave to another real estate broker who used it to interest British Land of America (BLA) in the premises. In August 1984, BLA entered into a contract with the corporate defendants to purchase the premises. Plaintiff played no part in introducing BLA to the sellers.

While Supreme Court correctly observed that plaintiff’s fourth cause of action is broad enough to state a claim based upon quasi-contract *(Miller v Schloss,*218 NY 400), its conclusion that plaintiff might recover half of the brokerage commission on that basis is in error. Recovery on a claim premised upon quasi-contract or unjust enrichment is limited to the reasonable value of the services rendered by the plaintiff *(Isaacs v Incentive Sys., 52*AD2d 550). In view of Supreme Court’s finding pursuant to CPLR 3212 (g) that there was no exclusive sales agency agreement between the parties, measurement of plaintiff’s recovery on the basis of one half of the brokerage commission actually paid, as in *Interactive Props. v Doyle Dane Bernbach*(125 AD2d 265, 272), is entirely inappropriate.

Plaintiff is limited to recovery of the value of the brochure or setup which it prepared. The mere use of this sales material to interest the purchaser in acquiring the premises does not elevate plaintiff to the status of a cobroker on the transaction. Concur—Asch, J. P., Kassal, Rosenberger, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6490 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6490

   To amend the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006 to extend the 
                   reduced royalty rate for soda ash.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 2, 2010

  Mrs. Lummis (for herself and Mr. Wu) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006 to extend the 
                   reduced royalty rate for soda ash.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF REDUCTION IN ROYALTY RATE ON SODA ASH.

    Section 102 of the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006 (Public 
Law 109-338; 30 U.S.C. 262 note) is amended by striking ``5-year'' and 
inserting ``10-year''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-40356 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WILLIE LELAND McQUEEN, also known as Will, and ORLANDO TYRE AUSTIN, also known as Lance, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CR-33-2

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Codefendants-appellants Willie Leland McQueen and Orlando Tyre Austin appeal their convictions and sentences for collection of extension of credit by extortionate means, possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have reviewed the arguments and the record and find no reversible error as toNo. 96-40356 -2- McQueen’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction. See United States v. Bermea , 30 F.3d 1539, 1551 (5th Cir. 1994), cert . denied , 115 S. Ct. 1113 (1995); United States v. El-Zoubi , 993 F.2d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court did not clearly err in imposing a Sentencing Guidelines enhancement based on a finding that the appellants had“abducted” one of their victims in committing the collection-ofcredit offenses. See United States v. Dumpson , No. 95-50106, slip op. at 10 (5th Cir. Oct. 19, 1995) (unpublished); U.S.S.G. § 2E2.1(b)(3)(A). The district court also did not clearly err in finding that Austin was a “leader” in the offense and that McQueen was a “manager.” See United States v. Musquiz , 45 F.3d 927, 932-33 (5th Cir.), cert . denied , 116 S. Ct. 54 (1995); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), (b). Austin’s contention that the district court violated Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 in adopting factual statements in his presentence report is meritless. See United States v. Whitlow , 979 F.2d 1008, 1011 (5th Cir. 1992). McQueen’s argument that the district court issued a jury instruction on the collection-of-credit offense that was at variance with, or constructively amended, the superseding indictment is also without merit. See United States v. Haymes , 610 F.2d 309, 310-11 (5th Cir. 1980). Austin’s pro se motion to relieve his appointed appellate counsel of his duties is DENIED. AFFIRMED.No. 96-40356 -3-
# Multilingual Resource Center

This page offers information in several languages on a variety of naturalization-related topics such as citizenship, Green Cards, employee verification, biometrics, how to report fraud and avoid immigration scams, and humanitarian programs. These resources are also available in American Sign Language, braille, and large print. 

We translate our materials into other languages to help people with limited English skills. If there are differences between English and another language, the English version is the official version. To learn more, see our Accuracy and Translation Disclaimer.

For information in Spanish, please see our website in Spanish.

For information about disability accommodations, please visit our Accommodations page.

Use the dropdown menu to see a full list of available languages. You can also search by topic.

Frequently Asked Questions About Urgent Humanitarian and Significant Public Benefit Parole for Afghans (Pashto)

Options for Noncitizen STEM Professionals to Work in the United States (Russian)

Options for Noncitizen STEM Professionals to Work in the United States (Korean)

Options for Noncitizen STEM Professionals to Work in the United States (Chinese)

Welcome to the United States: A Guide for New Immigrants (Spanish)  (PDF, 3.79 MB)

Frequently Asked Questions About Uniting for Ukraine (Russian)

Uniting for Ukraine (Russian)

Frequently Asked Questions About Uniting for Ukraine (Ukrainian)

Learn How To Apply for Work Authorization in the United States - EAD Poster  (PDF, 185.92 KB)

Guidance on Requesting a Fee Waiver for your Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (Haitian Creole)  (PDF, 158.12 KB)

11 - 20 total rows

- **Back
- Next**

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANIBAL GABRIEL CIFFONI,

Appellant/Cross Appellee,

v.

DANIELLA MEJIA,

Appellee/Cross Appellant.

Nos. 4D22-717 and 4D22-802

[July 6, 2023]

Consolidated appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the 

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; George Odom, Jr., Judge; 

L.T. Case No. FMCE20-009839.

Nancy A. Hass of Nancy A. Hass, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for 

appellant/cross appellee.

Terrence P. O’Connor of Morgan, Carratt & O’Connor, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellee/cross appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, C.J., FORST and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CAPITAL PROPERTIES, INC. AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES
Certification Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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/ Robert H. Eder

Robert H. EderChairman of the Board and Principal Executive OfficerMarch 22, 2007
EXHIBIT
32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002







In
connection with the Annual Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ended December 29, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry R. Welch, in my
capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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







/s/
      Jerry R. WelchDate:  
      March 28, 2008
            Jerry
      R. Welch
              Chief
      Executive Officer and Director
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 on Form 10-Q of Active Power, Inc. (the
Company) for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James A. Clishem, 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, to my knowledge:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a or 15d, as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ James A. Clishem                 
|James A. Clishem                     
|Chief Executive Officer and President
|July 27, 2006
Exhibit
      18




March
        16,
        2006
 
 
 Board
        of
        Directors
 Southern
        Union Company
 5444
        Westheimer Road
 Houston,
        Texas 77056-5306
 
 Dear
        Directors:
 
 We
        are
        providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-K
        filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.
 
 We
        have
        audited the consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual
        Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 and issued our
        report
        thereon dated March 16, 2006. In connection with the Company’s change in fiscal
        year end to December 31 from June 30, the Company has notified us of its
        change
        in the date of its annual goodwill impairment test to November 30 from May
        31.
        The Company has indicated that such change was made to maintain the alignment
        of
        the annual goodwill impairment test with the timing of the preparation of
        the
        Company’s annual budget. It should be understood that the preferability of one
        acceptable method of accounting over another for a change in dates of the
        annual
        goodwill impairment test has not been addressed in any authoritative accounting
        literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we have relied on
        management’s determination that this change in accounting principle is
        preferable. Based on discussions with management as to their judgment about
        the
        relevant business planning factors relating to the change, we concur with
        management that such change represents, in the Company’s circumstances, the
        adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity with Accounting
        Principles Board Opinion No. 20.
 
 Very
        truly yours,
 
 
 
 PricewaterhouseCoopers
        LLP
EX-10.10





 Exhibit 10.10 

Power of Attorney 
 I, Sufen LING, a
Chinese citizen whose ID card number is [            ], am a shareholder holding 5% equity (My Equity) in Shanghai Caishuo Talent Information Consulting Co., Ltd. For my equity, I
hereby irrevocably authorize CDP Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. to exercise the following rights during the term of this Power of Attorney: 

CDP Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. is authorized to act as my sole and exclusive agent to exercise the rights with respect of the matters related
to my equity, including but not limited to: (i) to attend the shareholders’ meeting of Shanghai Caishuo Talent Information Consulting Co., Ltd.; (ii) to exercise all the shareholders’ rights and voting rights that I have in accordance
with the laws of China and the Articles of Association of Shanghai Caishuo Talent Information Consulting Co., Ltd., including but not limited to the sale or transfer or pledge or disposal of all or any part of my equity; and (iii) as my
authorized representative, to designate and appoint the Legal Representative, Board Chairman, Executive Directors, Directors, Supervisors, General Manager and other senior management members of Shanghai Caishuo Talent Information Consulting Co.,
Ltd. 
 CDP Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. will have the rights to sign the transfer contract agreed in the Exclusive Purchase Right Contract
(to which I am a contracting party as required) on my behalf within the scope of authorization, and perform the Equity Pledge Contract and the Exclusive Purchase Right Contract executed by me as a party thereto and the instruments, documents or
provisions amending, supplementing, substituting and / or restating the same from time to time. The exercise of these rights will not limit this Power of Attorney. 

All acts of CDP Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. in respect of my equity are deemed to be my acts, and all documents signed by it are deemed to be
signed by me and will be recognized by me. 
 CDP Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. has the right to
re-entrust any other person or entity to handle the aforesaid matters without giving me a prior notice or obtain my prior consent. 

This Power of Attorney shall be irrevocable and continue to be valid as of the date of signing of the Power of Attorney while I am a shareholder of Shanghai
Caishuo Talent Information Consulting Co., Ltd. 
 During the term of this Power of Attorney, I hereby waive all rights relating to my equity which have
been authorized to CDP Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. through this Power of Attorney, and I shall not exercise such rights on my own. 
  

	
	Sufen LING
	
	/s/ Sufen Ling
	Date: January 23, 2018
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 88 (Monday, May 7, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22970-22971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10989]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[SC-38-200102(b); FRL-6973-8]


Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated 
Facilities and Pollutants: South Carolina

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the Section 111(d)/129 Plan for the 
State of South Carolina submitted by the South Carolina Department of 
Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) on September 19, 2000, for 
implementing and enforcing the Emissions Guidelines applicable to 
existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators. The Plan was 
submitted by the South Carolina DHEC to satisfy certain Federal Clean 
Air Act requirements. In the Final Rules Section of this Federal 
Register, EPA is approving the South Carolina State Plan submittal as a 
direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this 
as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates that it will not 
receive any significant, material, and adverse comments. A detailed 
rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule and 
incorporated by reference herein. If no significant, material, and 
adverse comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no 
further activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If 
EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn 
and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent 
final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this action.

DATE: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
June 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Gregory Crawford at 
the EPA Regional Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant 
to this proposed rule are available for public inspection during normal 
business hours at the following locations. The interested persons 
wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the 
appropriate office at least 24 hours before the day of the visit.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3014. Gregory Crawford, 
(404) 562-9046.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau 
of Air Quality Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, South Carolina 
29201. Telephone (803) 898-4123.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Crawford at (404) 562-9046 or 
Scott Davis at (404) 562-9127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct 
Final action which is located in the Rules

[[Page 22971]]

Section of this Federal Register and incorporated by reference herein.

    Dated: April 12, 2001.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 01-10989 Filed 5-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**Exhibit
31.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO**
 **RULES
13A-14(a) AND 15D-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS
AMENDED**
 
 I, George
L. Lindemann, certify that:
 
 (1)  I have
reviewed this Transition Report on Form 10-K of Southern Union Company;
  (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 registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;
  (4)  The
registrant’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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent
      fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
      annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
      materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting; and
  (5)  The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 registrant’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 registrant’s internal control
      over financial reporting.
  
 Date:
March 16, 2005
 
 /s/
GEORGE L. LINDEMANN
 George L.
Lindemann
 Chairman
of the Board and
 Chief
Executive Officer
 (principal
executive officer)