alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Virginia E. M. Onorato, Appellant, v Joseph Onorato, Respondent.

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balletta, J.), dated July 8, 1986, which, *inter alia,*declared that her partnership interest in Lupo Realty Company was not covered by an antenuptial agreement dated September 21, 1978, and from so much of an *618order of the same court, dated January 6, 1987, as, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 8, 1986, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated January 6, 1987, made upon reargument; and it is further, Ordered that the order dated January 6, 1987, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The plaintiff and the defendant were married on September 23, 1978. Two days prior to the marriage, i.e., September 21, 1978, the parties executed an antenuptial agreement. This agreement provided, *inter alia,*that the following property would be included within its ambit: "all real property and personal property in the form of stock [or] bonds now or in the future acquired by either of the parties”. The aforesaid property was designated as the "sole and separate property” of the respective spouses and each party waived any right, title and interest in such separate property.

The central issue on appeal is whether the plaintiff’s interest in a partnership known as Lupo Realty Company was covered by the antenuptial agreement. In construing the terms of a contract, in this case the antenuptial agreement, we are governed by the principle that where the words utilized are clear and unambiguous, no further inquiry is required to ascertain the parties’ intent *(see, Hall & Co. v Orient Overseas Assocs.,*65 AD2d 424, 428, *affd*48 NY2d 958; 2 Foster-Freed, Law and the Family § 27:9). A court may not rewrite into a contract terms that the parties did not insert, or, under the guise of construction, add or excise terms *(see, Slatt v Slatt,*64 NY2d 966, *rearg denied*65 NY2d 785; *Rodolitz v Neptune Paper Prods.,*22 NY2d 383; *Marine Assocs. v New Suffolk Dev. Corp.,*125 AD2d 649; 22 NY Jur 2d, Contracts, § 190). At bar, the language utilized by the parties is clear and not susceptible to more than one interpretation. Thus, the only type of personal property covered by the agreement is that which is in the form of stock or bonds.

The plaintiff’s partnership interest in Lupo Realty Company, as well as her interest in any real property owned by it, constitute personalty *(see, Matter of Havemeyer,*17 NY2d 216, *rearg denied*17 NY2d 918). Inasmuch as the partnership interest is not in the form of stock or bonds, it is not covered by the antenuptial agreement.

The plaintiff’s remaining contention has been considered and found to be without merit. Lawrence, J. P., Eiber, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-04405-AKH Document 2 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04405-AKH Document 2 Filed 11/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
(85 South. 921)

#### Ex parte ALPORD.

(7 Div. 68.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama,

May 20, 1920.)

Certiorari to tiie Court of Appeals.

Alto V. Lee, of Gadsden, for petition.

Goodhue & Brindley, of Gadsden, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

Petition of O. H. Alford for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of said court rendered in the case of O. H. Alford v. Singer Sewing Machine Company, 85 South. 584. Writ denied.
Exhibit 32
                                   ----------


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of RemoteMDx, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David G. Derrick, Chief
Executive Officer and Michael G. Acton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


                                              /s/ David G. Derrick
                                             ----------------------------
                                             David G. Derrick
                                             Chief Executive Officer
                                             RemoteMDx, Inc.

                                             /s/ Michael G. Acton
                                             ----------------------------
                                             Michael G. Acton
                                             Chief Financial Officer



Dated: August 17, 2005
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,117

EX PARTE RICKY DON HENDERSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 07-02-6355 IN THE 286 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HOCKLEY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of

certain chemicals with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance and sentenced to fifty years’

imprisonment. The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Henderson v. State, No. 07-

07-204-CR (Tex. App.–Amarillo, delivered August 12, 2008). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed. We remanded this
2

application to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court

has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely notify

Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App.

1997). We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionary review of the judgment oftheSeventh Court of Appeals in Cause No. 07-07204-CR

that affirmed his conviction in Case No. 07-02-6355 from the 286 Judicial District Court of th

Hockley County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with the Seventh Court

of Appeals within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: March 18, 2009

Do not publish
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 7 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
**EXHIBIT31(ii)**

**Rule13a-14(a)/Rule 15d-14(a) Certification**

I,Carol J. Cooper, Principal Financial Officer of Oakridge Energy, Inc., (the “Company”)certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form10-KSB of the Company;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the periods covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of The Company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;

4.             The Company’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theCompany, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of theCompany’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions 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 changein the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.             The Company’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the Company’s independent registeredpublic accounting firm and the audit committee of the Company’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)           All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which could adversely affect the Company’s ability torecord, 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 theCompany’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: May 29, 2007 | By  | /s/ Carol J. Cooper               |
|--------------------|----------|-----------------------------------|
|               |     |  Carol J. Cooper,            |
|               |     |  Principal Financial Officer |
|               |     |  of Oakridge Energy, Inc.    |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       1,071,700
<SECURITIES>                                    10,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  436,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (45,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    948,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,556,900
<PP&E>                                       1,345,900
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,202,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,885,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          354,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         6,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,603,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,885,700
<SALES>                                      1,195,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,414,000
<CGS>                                        1,112,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,785,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,484,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,484,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,484,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's consolidated income statements, consolidated balance sheets and
consolidated statements of cash flows and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements contained within the Company's Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,721
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,650
<ALLOWANCES>                                       411
<INVENTORY>                                     36,386
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,140
<PP&E>                                          58,611
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,873
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,253
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,968
<BONDS>                                         12,715
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,231
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,932
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,253
<SALES>                                        141,945
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,945
<CGS>                                           80,194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   80,194
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                48,449
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   278
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,785
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,239
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,956
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,283
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,283
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.88


</TABLE>
Clear All

        03 July 2023    

                    Naval Legend and Original Naval Commando Honored at SEAL Graduation                 
                The indomitable spirit of Boatswain’s Mate 1st Class Art Nicholas, one of the first naval commandos and a celebrated World War II veteran, was honored once again as Basic Training Command (BTC) paid tribute to him with a Trident presentation during the SEAL Qualification Training Class 355            

        29 June 2023    

                    Naval Special Warfare Center Welcomes New Command Master Chief; First SWCC To Hold Position                 
                Naval Special Warfare Center (NSWCEN) welcomed CMDCM (SWCC) Joaquin Martinez as its newest command master chief, June 29.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
#### ASSETS COLLECTING CO. v. BARNES-KING DEVELOPMENT CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

October 16, 1913.)

Appeal and Error (§ 99*)—Orders Reviewable—Discretion—Security for Attachment!—Increase.

An order vacating an attachment, unless plaintiff increased, the existing security from $1,000 to $2,500, was in no sense -final, but purely discretionary, and not reviewable.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 661-669; Dec. Dig. § 99.*]

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York; E. Henry Lacombe, Judge.

Action by the Assets Collecting Company against the Barnes-King Development Company. From an ord^r vacating an attachment, unless plaintiff increased the security to $2,500, it brings error.

Dismissed.

R. S. 'Harvey and F. E. M. Bullowa, both of New York City, for -plaintiff in error.

Chadbourne & Shores, of New York City, for defendant in error.

Before COXE and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and HAZEL, District-Judge.

*

For other cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to quash a writ of error to review an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated July 22, 1913, which order provided that the attachment heretofore granted be vacated unless the plaintiff increase the existing security from $1,000 to $2,500. The plaintiff has failed to increase the security as required and now sues out a writ of error to *207review the order requiring it. The court below, being of the opinion that the existing security was insufficient, was certainly justified in increasing it. Its action was in no sense final, but was purely discretionary, and intended only to give the defendant additional security covering the fees and costs incurred by it subsequent to the order of March 4, 1911. Such an order is not reviewable on writ of error. Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3, 1 Sup. Ct. 15, 27 L. Ed. 73; Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176, 15 L. Ed. 891; Atlantic Lumber Co. v. L. Bucki, etc., Co., 92 Fed. 864, 35 C. C. A. 59.

The motion to dismiss the writ of error is granted.
Alan Rich

From: Peter Shapiro [pshapiro@lbbslaw.com]

Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 6:26 PM

To: Alan Rich

Subject: RE: Fuller v Brant (AAA)

Page 1 of 2

7/18/2010

The technical problems have been solved and we have sent out to you today by overnight mail a disk 

containing those documents in a searchable format. Accordingly, please advise as soon as possible if 

you will agree to a schedule as directed by Judge Freeman. We may have to revisit specific dates based 

on schedule changes in the interim. 

 

Peter T. Shapiro, Esq. 

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP 

199 Water Street 

New York, NY 10038 

Phone: 212-232-1322 

Fax: 212-232-1399 

>>> "Alan Rich" <arich@richlaw.us> 5/26/2010 1:48 PM >>> 

I am uncomfortable agreeing to a discovery schedule as my prior 

understand was premised on our being provided a usable copy of BRANT ARB 

00001 through 021924. This is nearly 22,000 documents that have yet to 

be produced in a usable format and that my client needs to review. I 

would prefer to advise the court that those documents need to be 

produced, a date when that will happen and that we will be able to file 

a schedule shortly after the receipt of those documents. If the court 

wishes to confer in the interim, I am available for that. 

Please advise. Thank you. 

Alan J. Rich, Esq. 

Law Offices of Alan J. Rich, LLC 

26 Court Street, Suite 1801 

Brooklyn, NY 11242 

Tel: 212.921.2244 

ARich@RichLaw.US 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Peter Shapiro [mailto:pshapiro@lbbslaw.com] 

Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 5:01 PM 

To: Alan Rich 

Subject: Fuller v Brant (AAA) 

We are sending out to you today a CD containing searchable documents 

bates stamped BRANT ARB 032522 through 034975, which are documents that 

have not been produced previously. We had planned to produce 

reformatted, searchable versions of documents bates stamped BRANT ARB 

00001 through 021924 today as well, but due to computer problems the 

reformatted version was lost and we are recreating that work. The 

production will be made in the near future. 

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-16 Filed 07/22/10 Page 1 of 2
Peter T. Shapiro, Esq. 

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP 

199 Water Street 

New York, NY 10038 

Phone: 212-232-1322 

Fax: 212-232-1399 

No virus found in this incoming message. 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 

Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2881 - Release Date: 05/18/10 

02:26:00 

No virus found in this incoming message. 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 

Version: 9.0.819 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2897 - Release Date: 05/27/10 02:25:00 

Page 2 of 2

7/18/2010

Case 1:07-cv-05728-RJS-DCF Document 55-16 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2
# CE2010087EN.01038101.xml

| 1.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 87/381 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 87/381

---

Wednesday 11 March 2009Guidelines for the Member States’ employment policies *

P6_TA(2009)0115

European Parliament legislative resolution of 11 March 2009 on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (COM(2008)0869 – C6-0050/2009 – 2008/0252(CNS))

2010/C 87 E/63

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament,

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0869),

having regard to Article 128(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0050/2009),

having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0052/2009),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

| 2. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

| 3. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

| 4. | Reiterates its longstanding call on the Commission and the Council to ensure that the Parliament is given the necessary time, and in any event no less than five months, to fulfil its consultative role, as defined in Article 128(2) of the Treaty, during the full revision of the Employment Guidelines, which is scheduled to take place at the end of 2010; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Reiterates its longstanding call on the Commission and the Council to ensure that the Parliament is given the necessary time, and in any event no less than five months, to fulfil its consultative role, as defined in Article 128(2) of the Treaty, during the full revision of the Employment Guidelines, which is scheduled to take place at the end of 2010;

| 5. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

---