alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 21, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129324 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE Justices 

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff/CounterDefendant-Appellee, 

v SC: 129324 

 COA: 252659 

Calhoun CC: 02-002374-CK 

WILLIAM KOCH and TERRI KOCH,

Defendants/CounterPlaintiffs-Appellants, 

and 

WILLIAM KOCH and TERRI KOCH,

Third Party-Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v 

JAMES MARSH and MICHAEL A. CAPUTO, 

Third Party-Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 21, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH, WEAVER, and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

d0614 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

June 21, 2006 

Clerk
# L_2007132EN.01003301.xml

| 24.5.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 132/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 132/33

---

COUNCIL DECISION

of 7 May 2007

appointing a Latvian full member and two Latvian alternate members to the Committee of the Regions

(2007/350/EC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 263 thereof,

Having regard to the proposals from the Latvian Government,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC (1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 24 January 2006 the Council adopted Decision 2006/116/EC (1) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2006 to 25 January 2010.

| (2) | One member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr Uldis AUGULIS. One seat as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions becomes vacant with the appointment of Mr Aleksandrs LIELMEŽS as a member of that Committee. One seat as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr Gunārs LAICĀNS, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

One member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr Uldis AUGULIS. One seat as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions becomes vacant with the appointment of Mr Aleksandrs LIELMEŽS as a member of that Committee. One seat as alternate member of the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the mandate of Mr Gunārs LAICĀNS,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2010:

| (a) | as member:






  — | Mr Aleksandrs LIELMEŽS, in place of Mr Uldis AUGULIS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(a)

as member:

—

Mr Aleksandrs LIELMEŽS, in place of Mr Uldis AUGULIS,

and

| (b) | as alternate members:






  — | Ms Ligita GINTERE, Chairman of Jaunpils Local Municipality, in place of Mr Aleksandrs LIELMEŽS, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

as alternate members:

—

Ms Ligita GINTERE, Chairman of Jaunpils Local Municipality, in place of Mr Aleksandrs LIELMEŽS,

| — | Mr Jānis NEIMANIS, Chairman of Grobiņa Town Municipality, in place of Mr Gunārs LAICĀNS. |
| --- | --- |

—

Mr Jānis NEIMANIS, Chairman of Grobiņa Town Municipality, in place of Mr Gunārs LAICĀNS.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 7 May 2007.

For the Council

The President

H. SEEHOFER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 56, 25.2.2006, p. 75.

1

---
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0503. REGINALD L. MCRAE v. THE STATE.

Reginald L. McRae pled guilty to possession of cocaine, and his judgment of

conviction was entered on November 29, 2010. He subsequently filed a pro se

Motion to Modify Sentence Due to Clerical Error. The trial court entered an order

resolving the motion on March 27, 2014, and McRae filed a notice of appeal on May

5. We lack jurisdiction because the appeal is untimely. A notice of appeal must be

filed within 30 days after the entry of the trial court’s order. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The

proper and timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer

jurisdiction upon this Court. Couch v. United Paperworkers Intl. Union, 224 Ga.

App. 721 (482 SE2d 704) (1997). Here, McRae filed his notice of appeal 39 days

after the trial court’s order was entered. Accordingly, the appeal is untimely, and it

is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

01/06/2016

January 06, 2016
Exhibit 10



Exhibit 10.23


 

GUARANTEE


The undersigned, Interstate Business Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Guarantor"), hereby guarantees to pay upon demand the obligations of Equus Gaming Company L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Equus Entertainment Corporation, a Puerto Rico corporation, Housing Development Associates S.E., and Equus Management Company, a Delaware corporation (collectively "Equus") to American Community Properties Trust, a Maryland business trust ("ACPT"), including a receivable of Equus due to ACPT in the amount of $153,837 at December 31, 2001.

This is a continuing guarantee and shall not be amended nor terminated except by written statement signed by ACPT, authorized by a majority of the independent trustees of ACPT.

The undersigned acknowledges that it together with its affiliates own a majority of the outstanding equity securities of Equus and ACPT, and that ACPT would not have extended credit to Equus in the past, nor will it extend credit to Equus in the future, without this guarantee.

Guarantor waives notice of acceptance of this guarantee and of any extensions thereof and protest and notice of dishonor or default.

This is a guarantee of payment and not of collection, and Guarantor waives any right to require that any action be brought against Equus or any other person or that resort be had to any security or credit on the books of ACPT in favor of any other person.

No delay on the part of ACPT in exercising any rights hereunder or failure to exercise of the same shall operate as a waiver of such rights against the undersigned.

This guarantee shall be deemed to be a contract entered into in and pursuant to the laws of the State of Maryland and shall in all respects be governed, construed, applied and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Maryland.  The undersigned agrees to submit to personal jurisdiction in the State of Maryland in any action arising out of this guarantee, and in any such action or proceeding service may be served upon the undersigned by registered mail to or by personal service at the last known address of the undersigned whether within or without the jurisdiction of any such court.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this guarantee as of this 25th day of March 2002.

	 	
INTERSTATE BUSINESS CORPORATION

	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	
By:
	
/s/ J. Michael Wilson

	 	 	
Its President

	 	 	 
	
WITNESS:
	 	 
	 	 	 
	
/s/ Martha Colson
# L_2007076EN.01001901.xml

| 16.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 76/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 76/19

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 278/2007

of 15 March 2007

on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector (oranges)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 of 8 October 2001 on detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables (2), and in particular Article 6(6) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 134/2007 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 134/2007 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued.

| (2) | In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for oranges will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for oranges will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector.

| (3) | To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for oranges after 15 March 2007 should be rejected until the end of the current export period, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for oranges after 15 March 2007 should be rejected until the end of the current export period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for system B export licences for oranges submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 134/2007, export declarations for which are accepted after 15 March and before 1 July 2007, are hereby rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 March 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 15 March 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 64).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 42, 14.2.2007, p. 16, as corrected by OJ L 52, 21.2.2007, p. 12.

3

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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            1843
<SECURITIES>                                   1256616
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     181199
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1439658
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6010308
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           704294
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      10663
<COMMON>                                        886840
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6010308
<SALES>                                           1380
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1380
<CGS>                                              380
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (1737516)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7286
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1737516)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1737516)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### DYNO NOBEL INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LDE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 04-1467.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 7, 2005.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, RADER and LINN, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

*AFFIRMED. See*Fed. Cir. R. 86.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT


TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





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











In
connection with the Quarterly Report of StrikeForce Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Mark Joseph Corrao , Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, 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.








Dated:
May 15, 2008





/s/ Mark Joseph
Corrao


Mark
Joseph Corrao


Chief
Financial Officer
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 11 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 06-14705

 

D. C. Docket No. 05-02359 CV-BBM-1

NORTHWEST PACKING CO.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

 

(June 11, 2007)

Before DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,*Judge.

PER CURIAM:

_________________________

*Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by

designation.
2

This appeal concerns the interpretation of an insurance contract. Appellant,

Northwest Packing Company (“Northwest”), plaintiff in the underlying diversity

action, challenges the district court’s decision to reverse its earlier decision

granting Northwest’s motion for summary judgment and, on reconsideration, 

grant instead the cross-motion for summary judgment filed by appellee, Ace

American Insurance Company (“Ace”).

The controversy involves the interpretation of the exception to the exclusion

from coverage damages caused by vermin, which provides that if an excluded loss

is caused by a “covered cause of loss,” then it also is covered. More specifically,

Northwest argues that “negligence” is a “covered cause of loss,” and, therefore,

the exception applies because it was Southland Bonded Warehouses, Inc.’s

negligence that permitted the rat infestation to occur.

After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the

benefit of oral argument, we reject Northwest’s interpretation of the contract. 

Moreover, we accept the district court’s interpretation that “negligence” is a

condition precedent under the contract. “Negligence” itself is not a “covered

cause of loss.” A “covered cause of loss” is a fire or some other event that causes

damage. According to the terms of the policy, negligence must cause the event if

coverage is to lie, but it is not negligence itself that is the “covered cause of loss.” 
3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of

Ace.

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of WMS Industries Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Scott D. Schweinfurth,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ Scott D. Schweinfurth
-------------------------
Scott D. Schweinfurth
Chief Financial Officer
September 20, 2002


                                       61
#### CARROL MASINI, Appellant, v. GEORGE FRASER and BETTY FRASER, Husband and Wife, Respondents.

No. 17011

December 23, 1986

729 P.2d 1358

*Julian C. Smith,*Jr., Carson City, for Appellant.

*Ronald T. Banta,*Yerington, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Over twenty years ago, the father of appellant Masini granted respondent George Fraser a license to build a road across a portion of the Masinis’ farm, to provide access to an irrigation control box serving the Frasers’ property. Fraser built such a road, and he and his lessees have used it ever since. However, after a dispute with Fraser’s present lessee over an unrelated matter, Masini blocked the road. The trial court found that the license was executed, and therefore irrevocable; it awarded compensatory and punitive damages and attorney’s fees and enjoined *635further interference with use of the road. Because we conclude that the license was revocable, we reverse the judgment in its entirety.1

We have discussed the doctrine of irrevocability of licenses in two earlier opinions: Lee v. McLeod, 12 Nev. 280 (1877), and Sheehan v. Kasper, 41 Nev. 27, 165 P. 632 (1917). In each of these cases, the licensee’s expenditures in reliance on the license were quite substantial. Consequently, the question whether insubstantial reliance would render a license irrevocable did not arise. The language of those opinions, therefore, seems to indicate that reliance, *per se,*is all that is required. Such an inference is inaccurate; a licensee cannot, by purely trivial reliance, terminate the licensor’s power of revocation. *Accord*Cooke v. Ramponi, 239 P.2d 638, 641 (Cal. 1952).

The record shows that Fraser made the road in question by merely lowering the blade on his tractor as he went to and from the irrigation control box. This is hardly a substantial expenditure of time, money, materials or labor; Fraser had to go to the takeout box in any event. Thus, the license remained revocable and Masini’s action was not unlawful.

It follows that Fraser should not have obtained relief. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment for Masini.

1

Masini concedes that the Frasers have an independent secondary easement along the bank of the irrigation ditch (though not on the site of the access road) to the extent necessary for access to the control box, maintenance of the ditch, etc. That easement is not here at issue.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

K.W., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, MANEUVER 

SUPPORT CENTER OF EXCELLENCE, 

COMMAND ELEMENT, 

Fort Leonard Wood, MO, Employer

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-1290

Issued: May 8, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Victor A. Walker, for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On September 7, 2022, appellant through her representative, filed a timely appeal from an

April 4, 2022, nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). 

The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 22-1290.

In a letter dated and received January 26, 2023, appellant’s representative requested that 

the appeal be withdrawn.

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for 

legal or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board.

Id. An attorney or representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, 

subject to fine or imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of 

fees to a representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that the representative’s request 

for the withdrawal of the appeal should be granted.2 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the withdrawal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 22-1290 is dismissed.

Issued: May 8, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Boar

2 The Board’s decisions and orders are final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance. 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).