alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bessie Levine and Sol Levine, Plaintiffs, *v.*Sarah Borenstein, Defendant. Allerton Auto Service, Inc., and Vincent Felli, Impleaded Defendants.

Municipal Court of New York, Borough of Bronx, First District,

September 14,1936.

*Frederick Mellar,*for the defendant Sarah Borenstein, for the motion.

*Samuel Weiser [Jerome M. Schwartz*of counsel], for the defendant Allerton Auto Service, Inc., opposed.

Sullivan (Daniel V.), J.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries the plaintiffs originally sought to hold the defendant Borenstein solely hable.

Pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 193 of the Civil Practice Act, such defendant obtained an order of this court bringing in the other parties and served upon them a supplemental summons and a pleading in the nature of a cross-complaint in accordance with section 264 of the Civil Practice Act, demanding judgment, with costs, in her favor against them in such amount as she might be required to respond.

*447Thereafter the plaintiffs, in their own behalf, procured the issuance of a supplemental summons and served a complaint against these additional parties.

Issue was joined as between the various parties. The action was tried before the court and a jury. All issues raised by the several pleadings and the proofs were submitted to the jury for their determination. A verdict was returned for all defendants.

The defendant Allerton Auto Service, Inc., has taxed costs against the plaintiffs and also against the defendant Borenstein, which she seeks to strike from the judgment entered in the action in so far as it affects her. Costs are statutory. (Mun. Ct. Code, § 164.)

The effect of the verdict appears to be that as between the defendant Borenstein and the defendant Allerton Auto Service, Inc., it is the prevailing party. *(Bozzuffi*v. *Darrieusecq,*125 Misc. 178.) Upon this motion the former should be viewed as a plaintiff and the latter as a defendant. Regarding or treating them otherwise would, under the circumstances herein, seem unjust to the opposing defendant brought into the case at the instance of the original defendant, and thereby required at its own risk and expense, to meet issues which became complicated upon the trial. If the jury had found for the plaintiffs as against her and for her as against the other defendants, then she would have been entitled to the costs she demanded.

The motion to retax the costs is denied.
Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Annual Report of Global Med Technologies, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

|(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.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:  March
 30, 2006

| | /s/ Michael I. Ruxin, M.D.Name: Michael I. Ruxin, M.D.Chief Executive
     Officer
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentation
authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to Global Med Technologies, Inc. and will be retained
by Global Med Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000740892
<NAME> INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         118,814
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,814
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          537,806
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,801
<OTHER-SE>                                   (381,992)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   155,814
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   383
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                15,550
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,167)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,167)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
---

Exhibit 31.1

Certification

I, Fred W. Brackebusch, certify that:

(1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of New
  Jersey Mining 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
  small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4) I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
  controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))
  for the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls
  and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
  under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small
  business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me
  by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
  report is being prepared;

(b) Not required;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
  small business issuer'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

(d) Disclosed in this report any change
  in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that
  occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the
  small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
  that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
  the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5) I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
  control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and
  the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business
  issuer'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
  small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 26, 2007

By /s/ FRED W. BRACKEBUSCHFred W. Brackebusch, President, Treasurer & Director

---
EXHIBIT32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

David E. Hershberg,Chief Executive Officer of Globecomm Systems Inc., and Andrew C. Melfi,Chief Financial Officer of Globecomm Systems Inc., each herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual reportof Globecomm Systems Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June30, 2005 (the "Annual Report") fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in theAnnual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Globecomm SystemsInc.

|                         |  |                                                                                            |  |        |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|-------------------------|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--------|--|--|--|--|--|--|
| Date:September 13, 2005 |  | By: /s/ DAVID E.HERSHBERGDavid E. HershbergChairman of the BoardandChief Executive Officer |  |   |
|                    |  | By: /s/ANDREW C. MELFIAndrew C. MelfiVice President, ChiefFinancial OfficerandTreasurer    |  |   |
|                         |

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided toGlobecomm Systems Inc. and will be retained by Globecomm Systems Inc.and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Chad A. Carlson, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of StarTek, Inc.;

 

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; and

 

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.

 

 
| Date:   May 31, 2012 | /s/   CHAD A. CARLSON                   |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                      | Chad   A. Carlson                       |
|                      | President   and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOSE TORRES-MELVIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2023-2507

June 5, 2024

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SLEET, C.J., and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### Richfield Oil Corporation of New York, Claimant, *v.*The State of New York, Defendant.

(Claim No. 23970.)

Court of Claims,

July 28, 1936.

*316
      *Lourie & Rosman [I. B. Rosman*of counsel], for the claimant.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General [James H. Glavin, Jr.,*and *Darwin W. Telesford, Assistant Attorneys-General,*of counsel], for the State of New York.

Ryan, J.

In August and October, 1934, claimant sold the Palisades Interstate Park Commission for the use of the Emergency Work Bureau, 20,388 gallons of gasoline. In making payment the Commission deducted $203.88 and claimant sues for that sum. The sum represents a Federal tax of one cent per gallon under the Revenue Act of 1932, as amended, and the State claims exemption from this tax.

At the time of the transaction the Revenue Act of 1932, as amended (effective July 1, 1933), read as follows:

> “ Section 620. Tax-Free Sales.

> “ Under regulations prescribed by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Secretary, no tax under this title shall be imposed with respect to the sale of any article * * *

> *“*(3) for resale by the vendee to a State or political subdivision thereof for use in the exercise of an essential governmental function, if such article is in due course so resold.” (See U. S. Code [1934 ed.], tit. 26, note, p. 1187, § 620.)

> Regulation 44 of the United States Treasury Department, article 24, recited:

> “ The States and their political subdivisions exercise many functions not essentially governmental, such as * * *

> “ B. supplying recreational facilities, such as parks and playgrounds.”

Accordingly an exemption certificate supplied by the Park Commission to the claimant in compliance with the regulations was rejected by the auditor of the Treasury Department and the claimant paid the tax.

Section 620 of the Revenue Act has since been amended to read as follows: *“*(3) for the exclusive use of the United States, any State, Territory of the United States, or any political subdivision of the foregoing, or the District of Columbia.” (As amd. Aug. 30, 1935, chap. 829, § 401, 49 Stat. 1025, effective Oct. 1, 1935.)

Was the sale tax free under the Revenue Act as it then read ? Did the Commission rightfully deduct the amount of the tax?

*317We hold that the conduct of its parks by the State of New York is an essential governmental function. (See *Indian Motorcycle Co.*v. *United States,*283 U. S. 570; *Panhandle Oil Co.*v. *Mississippi ex rel. Knox,*277 id. 218.) Such an enterprise is very different from the sale of liquor. *(South Carolina*v. *United States,*199 U. S. 437; *Ohio*v. *Helvering,*292 id. 360.) The case of *Augustine*v. *Town of Brant*(249 N. Y. 198) does not hold to the contrary.

Claimant’s remedy would seem to be elsewhere. The claim here must be dismissed.

Barrett, J., concurs.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000637 30-JUN-2017 09:31 AM
#### Marion County v. Spaulding.

(Decided April 21, 1911.)

Appeal from Marion Circuit Court.

Costs — Motion to Correct Taxation of Cost — Filing Copies of Briefs— Taxation of Cost .for One Copy — The copies of a brief intended for distribution among the judges of the Court of Appeals are not such papers as the statute refers to, and' the clerk in taxing the cost should only tax cost for filing the brief, and not for each copy, and where a brief is filed for both the original and *cross> appeal, the service for filing it should he taxed hut once.

*On a cross appeal a tax of $2.00 is not to be .paid and an attorney’s fee is not to be taxed - i

HENRY S. McELROY for appellant.

WM. M. SPALDING and BROWN *&*NUCKOLS for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

CHIEF JUSTICE HOBSON

ON Motion to Correct Taxation of Cost.

By section 1742 Kentucky Statutes the successful party is allowed an attorney’s fee of $5.00 in common law actions in this court to be taxed as cost. A cross appeal may only he taken by the appellee against the appellant. It is heard with the original appeal. It is not barred by limitation although not sued out within two years after the judgment. It is in other words, a mere incident of the appeal, and not a separate proceeding. (Covington Short Route Co. v. Piel, 9 R. 665, Elizabethtown, etc. R. R. Co. v. Catlettsbnrg Water Co. 110 Ky. 175.) No attorney’s fee should therefore he taxed on the cross appeal. Only one attorney’s fee may he taxed in favor of the successful party on the appeal. For the samé reason there is no tax to be paid on a cross appeal. The tax of $2.00 is to be paid on an appeal. There is no provision of the statute for a tax of $2.00 on a cross appeal. (Kentucky Statutes Section 4238.)

By a rule of this court where printed briefs or petitions for rehearing are filed, nine copies are filed with the clerk; one to remain in the record and the others are for' distribution among tbe judges. The statute which allows the clerk fifteen cents for filing a paper refers to papers which are to remain in the record. The copies of the brief or petition for rehearing which are intended for distribution among the judges, do not remain in the record and are not such papers as the statute refers to. The clerk in taxing the cost should only tax fifteen cents for *290filing the brief, and not fifteen cents in addition for each copy. When a brief is filed which is the party’s brief both on the original and the cross-appeal, the service of filing it should only be taxed once. It should not be taxed on the original appeal, and then again on the cross appeal as only one service is rendered. The same is true of others like matters, only one charge should be made for one service.

The motion to correct the taxation of cost is sustained to the extent above indicated; in other respects it is overruled.
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.27E


[**]


[**] CERTAIN INFORMATION IN THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN OMITTED AND FILED
SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION. CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT HAS BEEN REQUESTED WITH
RESPECT TO THE OMITTED PORTIONS.



                                  Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          48,466
<SECURITIES>                                     2,507
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,719
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,361
<PP&E>                                         970,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                (268,234)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 862,482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,116
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,802
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   862,482
<SALES>                                        182,561
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               190,624
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  138,296
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,422
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             32,906
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    32,906
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                         EXHIBIT 10.14.2

                           FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                     THE UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
                    ENHANCED RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN

     The Union Carbide Corporation Enhanced Retirement Income Plan, as
Amended and Restated as of January 1, 1998 (the "Plan") is hereby amended as
follows:

     1.     Article V, Section 4 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to
read as follows:

               "Section 4.  Notwithstanding the provisions of
            Sections 1 and 3 of this Article V, Participants may elect,
            in accordance with provisions determined from time to time
            by the Compensation Committee or its designee, that their
            payments under the Plan shall be made either (i) in a lump
            sum as of July 1 of the calendar year following such
            election (or, if earlier, as soon as practicable in such
            following calendar year in circumstances where the
            Participant was not employed by the Corporation during the
            year of such election), or (ii) in substantially equal
            installments over a period of at least 2 but not more than
            10 years commencing as of such date.  The lump sum payment
            or installment payments described in the preceding sentence
            shall be calculated using (A) a discount rate equal to the
            average of 10 and 20 year Aaa municipal bonds as published
            by Moody's or a similar rating service ("Discount Rate")
            for the month of November of the year prior to the year
            payments commence, and (B) a mortality table determined by
            the Compensation Committee or its designee.
            Notwithstanding the foregoing, for benefits which will
<PAGE>

            commence in 2002, the discount rate shall be the Discount
            Rate for the month of January, 2001. The Compensation
            Committee or its designee shall determine the procedures
            for such elections and the time and method of payment for
            payments in accordance with this Section 4.  For
            Participants who make the election described in this
            Section 4, the provisions of Sections 1 and 3 of this
            Article V shall not apply.  Notwithstanding the foregoing,
            a Participant who elects to receive a lump sum payment
            under Article V, subsection 4(i) may also elect to receive
            a monthly benefit under Article V, section 1 commencing on
            the date the Participant commences benefits under the
            Retirement Plan and ceasing on the date such Participant
            receives the lump sum payment contemplated under Article V,
            subsection 4(i)."

     2.     The provisions of this First Amendment shall be effective as of
January 1, 2001.


                                        UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION


                                        By: /s/ W.R. Hutchinson

                                        Date:   January 20, 2001
No. 3,425.

#### GAIL V. LYNCH, Respondent, *v.*WYLIE PERMANENT CAMPING CO., Appellant.

*Appeal from District Court, Park*County; *J. M. Clements, a Judge of the First Judicial District, presiding.*

Decided January 18, 1915.

*Mr. O. M. Harvey*and *Messrs. Wm. Wallace, Jr., John G. Brown*and *T. B. Weir,*for Appellant.

PER CURIAM.

-It is ordered that the appeal in the above-entitled cause be, and the same is hereby, dismissed in accordance with *praecipe*of counsel for appellant on file herein.