alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### APPEAL OF WILLETT

No. 249PA82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 584.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 12 May 1982.
#### COTHRAN v. EVANS

No. 211P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 431.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 June 1982.
#### SNML CORP. v. BANK

No. 187 PC.

Case below: 41 N.C. App. 28.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 23 August 1979.
#### STATE v. WALDEN

No. 336 PC.

No. 162 (Fall Term).

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 196.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 1 December 1981.
#### ELIZABETH ANN TAYLOR v. JACK HAYES

No. 25

Before *Judge Keiger*presiding at the 30 October 1978 Civil Session of FORSYTH District Court and a jury, judgment, based on the jury verdict, was entered in favor of plaintiff for money damages. The Court of Appeals, on rehearing, in an opinion by Judge Hill in which Chief Judge Morris and Judge Parker concurred, found no error. We allowed defendant’s petition for further review on 2 August 1980.

*Legal Aid Society of Northwest North Carolina, Inc. by Ellen W. Gerber, Attorney for plaintiff appellee.*

*White and Crumpler, by Fred G. Crumpler, Jr., G. Edgar Parker, Edward L. Powell, and Robert B. Womble, Attorneys for defendant appellant.*

PER CURIAM.

This is an action by a tenant against her landlord for treble damages pursuant to G.S. 75-16, for defendant’s alleged violation of G.S. 75-1.1 (a) which prohibits “[ujnfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair and deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. . . .” Plaintiff claimed that defendant induced her to rent his apartment by making fraudulent misrepresentations concerning the condition of the apartment. The jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded damages for defendant’s misrepresentations in the sum of $785.00. Judge Keiger concluded that by making the misrepresentations to plaintiff as found by the jury, “defendant committed an unfair or deceptive trade practice within the meaning of [G.S. 75-1.1].” He, consequently, trebled the jury’s award of damages and entered judgment in the sum of $2,355.00.

In an opinion filed 5 February 1980 the Court of Appeals initially concluded that there was error in the introduction of evidence. On rehearing, however, the Court of Appeals concluded ultimately that no error had been committed and affirmed the *628judgment of the trial court.

After we allowed defendant’s petition for further review, he presented in his new brief only three questions. Two of them concerned the admission of evidence. The third deals with whether there was sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury on the question of defendant’s misrepresentations.

After reviewing the record, the briefs, and hearing oral arguments on the questions presented, we conclude that the petition for further review was improvidently granted. Our order granting further review is, therefore, vacated. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the Forsyth District Court remains undisturbed and in full force and effect.

Discretionary Review improvidently granted.
#### John R. Miller, Appellant, *v.*Shubert Theatrical Company, Respondent.

*Miller*v. *Shubert Theatrical Co.,*172 App. Div. 907, affirmed.

(Argued October 24, 1918;

decided November 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 8, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term in an action to recover *669on a contract for services. The complaint alleged that defendant contracted to employ plaintiff’s assignor for a stated period and discharged him before the expiration thereof. The defense was that the contract was one by which the employee was to perform to the satisfaction of his employer and. that he was discharged for failure to give satisfaction.

*Paul N. Turner*for appellant.

*Charles H. Tuttle*and *William Klein*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback and Hogan, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J. Absent: Crane, J.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

KIM LAUBE,

Appellant,

v.

TERESA STANEK REA, Acting Director, United 

States Patent and Trademark Office,

Appellee,

AND

WAHL CLIPPER CORPORATION,

Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-1048

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Reexamination 

No. 95/000,523.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

KENT A. ROWALD, Law Offices of Kent A. Rowald, PC, 

of Houston Texas, argued for appellant. 
 

MARY L. KELLY, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, 

argued for appellee, Teresa Stanek Rea, Acting Director, 

United States Patent and Trademark Office. With her on 

the brief were NATHAN K. KELLEY, Deputy Solicitor,

ROBERT J. MCMANUS and AMY J. NELSON, Associate 

Solicitors. 

MARK A. HAGEDORN, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, of 

Chicago, Illinois, argued for appellee Wahl Clipper Corporation. 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, and TARANTO,

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

September 16, 2013 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-25      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 1 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-25      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 2 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-25      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 3 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-25      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 4 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 27-25      Filed 05/22/2008     Page 5 of 5
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.5


                    MODIFICATION OF SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE



WHEREAS this agreement is in reference to a loan which is evidenced by an
instrument entitled Secured Promissory Note, (NOTE), dated January 11, 2000
executed by LEE PHARMACEUTICALS for the original principal sum of Fifty Eight
Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($58,000.00) and payable to the order of FINOVA
CAPITAL CORPORATION.

Principal balance outstanding on this Note as of this date is FIFTY TWO
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($52,100.00).

NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by the undersigned parties that the Note shall be
amended in the following respect:





Maturity date of the Note shall be extended to May 21, 2002.







Except as noted above, all the terms, conditions and provisions of said Note
shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

Date: May 19, 2000                                 Loan Number: LEE10
     -------------                                             -------

FINOVA CAPITAL CORPORATION                         LEE PHARMACEUTICALS
a Delaware corporation                             a California corporation
----------------------                             ------------------------



By: FARHAD MOTIA                                   By: RONALD G. LEE
   -----------------------------                       ------------------------
    Farhad Motia, Vice President                       Ronald G. Lee, President
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.2
 BARCLAYCARD FUNDING PLC
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on
Form 6-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Barclaycard Funding PLC;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required
under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement.
 Name:    Paul Gerard Turner
Title:      Director
Date:      June 23, 2006
 - 27 -
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.3 GRACECHURCH RECEIVABLES TRUSTEE LIMITED
Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 I, Paul Gerard Turner, certify that: 1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, and all reports on
Form 6-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect
of periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual
report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
reports is included in these reports;4.
    
    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and
based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance review required
under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the
servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and5.
    
    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicers compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon
the report provided by an independent public accountant, after
conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation
Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the
pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement.
 By: /s/ Paul Gerard TurnerName:
    
    Paul Gerard TurnerTitle:
    
    DirectorDate:
    
    June 30, 2005
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.2 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Southwark Towers
32 London Bridge Street
London SE1 9SY
Telephone +44 (0) 20 7583 5000
Facsimile +44 (0) 20 7833 4652 The Directors
Barclays Bank PLC
1234 Pavilion Drive
Northampton
NN4 7SG The Directors
Gracechurch Card Funding (No. 2) PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Barclaycard Funding PLC
54 Lombard Street
London
EC3P 3AH The Directors
Gracechurch Receivables Trustee Limited
26 New Street
St. Helier
Jersey
JE2 3RA February 28, 2005 Dear Sirs Report of Independent Accountants We have examined managements assertions that Barclays Bank PLC (the Servicer), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Barclays PLC, has complied with its obligations, in its capacity as Servicer, in
respect of the minimum servicing requirements for the credit card receivables




---



##### 



arising on designated accounts as set forth in the clauses 2.1.d, 2.1.e, 2.1.f, 2.1.j, 2.2.a, 2.5.a and 2.5.b, using
definitions set forth in the Master Definitions schedule between Gracechurch Receivables Trustee
Limited, Barclays Bank PLC and Barclaycard Funding PLC dated 24 October 2002 of the Beneficiaries
Servicing Agreement between Barclaycard Funding PLC and Barclays Bank PLC dated 23 November 1999
(BSA) during the year ended 31 December 2004 . Management is responsible for the assertion. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting managements assertion about the Servicers compliance with those requirements
and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe
that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide
a legal determination on the Servicers compliance with specified servicing requirements. In our opinion,managements assertion that the Servicer complied with the aforementioned
requirements during the year ended 31 December 2004 is fairly stated, in all material respects. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 28 February 2005 Yours faithfully, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP End of Filing
# C_2011117EN.01002101.xml

| 15.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 117/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/21

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2011/C 117/14

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 29.1.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 29.1.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Member State | France |
| Stock or Group of stocks | SBR/678- |
| Species | Red seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) |
| Zone | EU and international waters of VI, VII and VIII |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 112767 |

Date and time of closure

29.1.2011

Duration

29.1.2011-31.12.2011

Member State

France

Stock or Group of stocks

SBR/678-

Species

Red seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo)

Pagellus bogaraveo

Zone

EU and international waters of VI, VII and VIII

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

112767

Web link to the decision of the Member State:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADDED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and will be retained by Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   Date:   August 14, 2006   By   /s/ Ted R. Sharp  Ted R, Sharp, Chief Financial Officer          1
#### Weems *&*Cowles, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*Nussbaum *&*Dannenburg, defendants.

(By two judges.) — In a suit on a *'quantum, meruit*for professional services, when there is conflicting evidence as to the amount and efficiency of the services, this Court will only in a very extreme case, reverse the judgment of the Judge refusing a new trial. The jury in such cases are, by law, the proper tribunal to estimate the services, and the Court ought only to interfere in extreme cases, so as that verdict is illegal. 12th March, 1872.

New trial. Before Judge Cole. Bibb Superior Court. May Term, 1871.

Weems & Cowles, as attorneys, sued Nussbaum *&*Dannenburg for $1,000, as the value of their services as their attorney, in procuring a settlement of a certain case.. The evidence was conflicting as to every fact, except that the claim was settled at a saving of $4,900 out of $6,000, claimed from defendants. Plaintiffs claimed that they brought about the settlement and were employed by defendants. Defendants denied employing them in that case, and said they brought about the settlement themselves. No services were shown to have been rendered by Weems *&*Cowles, except consultations and the filing of pleas which they claimed would defeat the action. The evidence as to the value of their services was variant. The jury found for them $50 and costs. A new trial was moved for upon the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law, etc. The Court refused a new trial and that is assigned as error.

A. O. Bacon, by J. R. Jackson, for plaintiffs in error.

Poe, Hall *&*Poe, for defendants.

McCay, Judge.

This case comes clearly within the rule so often laid down by this Court. Here was a suit for the value of services, a *124*quantum meruit.*Even the *evidence*is matter of opinion to a large extent; and this is true, both as to the value of the services in money, as well as to how far the plaintiffs’ services affected the settlement. There is also conflicting testimony as to what the contract was. Knowing, as we do, some of the parties, we may have our own views of the proper credit to be given to the statements of each. But we are not a jury, and it is no part of our duty, or is it in the scope of our authority to do this.

We do not think the Judge erred as matter of law, in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.
SCWC-12-0000422 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

ZAK K. SHIMOSE, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs. HAWAI # I HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION dba HILO MEDICAL CENTER,

Respondent/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-12-0000422; CIV. NO. 09-1-383) ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ. and Circuit Judge Alm, in place of Acoba, J., recused) Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellant’s Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed on January 21, 2014, is hereby accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that no oral argument will be heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai# i, March 6, 2014. Zak K. Shimose, petitioner pro se Sarah O. Wang and Darin R. Leong for respondent /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Steven S. Alm Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000422 06-MAR-2014 09:06 AM
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, D. Michael Parker, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Kewaunee Scientific Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrants other
certifying officer 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 we 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly 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 quarterly report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter 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 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

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: September 10, 2007



/s/ D. Michael ParkerD. Michael ParkerSenior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer