alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### James H. Perkins, Appellant, *v.*The Commercial Advertiser Association, Respondent.

*‘Ohange of venue*— *a stipulation extending the time to answer not a consent to the venue named in the summons..*

In an action in which both parties resided in the city of New York, the plaintiff gave the defendant twenty days’ further time to plead, on condition that the date of issue should remain the same. At the end of that time the defendant served its answer, and with it a demand for a change of venue. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant by the stipulation extending its time to answer had waived its right to demand a change of venue.

*ITeld,*that such extension was not a consent to the trial of the action in the county named in the summons and complaint, and that a motion made to change the place of trial before the service of the answer was regular.

Appeal by tbe plaintiff, James H. Perkins, from an order of tbe 'Supreme Court, made at tbe Queens County Special Term and entered in tbe office of the clerk of the county of Queens on tbe 11th day of April, 1895, which changed the place of trial of the action from the county of Queens to the county of New York.

The plaintiff in the above-entitled action designated in the summons and complaint the county of Queens as the place of trial of the action. He gave the defendant twenty days further time to plead, on condition that the date of issue should remain the same. At the end of that time the defendant duly served its answer, and with the answer a demand for a change of venue from the county of Queens to the county of New York. The plaintiff claimed that the stipulation extending the defendant’s time to answer constituted a waiver on its part of the right to demand a change of venue.

*Joseph*Fitch, for the appellant.

*Edward Kent,*for the respondent.

Dykman, J.:

This is an appeal from an order changing the place of trial from the county of Queens to the city and county of New York. It is conceded that both the parties reside in the county of New York. That the plaintiff gave the defendant twenty days further time to plead on condition that issue should remain of the original date of *25February eighth, and it is claimed that that extension was a consent to the trial of the action in the county named in the summons and complaint. The position of the appellant is untenable. Under the stipulation the date of the issue when it was formed was to be the eighth day of February, but the time of joining issue was when the answer was served. As the motion was made before that time, it was regular and within the statute.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and • disbursements.

Brown, P. J., and Pratt, J., concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of the President and Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Robert
C. Hagerty, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Polycom, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations
of Polycom, Inc.



|                  |  |        |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|February 19, 2010 |  | By:    |  | /s/    ROBERT C.
HAGERTY             
|                  |  | Name:  |  | Robert C. Hagerty                    
|                  |  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



Certification of the Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Michael R. Kourey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Polycom, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Polycom, Inc.



|                  |  |        |  |                                                                              
|----------------- |  | ------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|February 19, 2010 |  | By:    |  | /s/    MICHAEL R.
KOUREY                                                     
|                  |  | Name:  |  | Michael R. Kourey                                                            
|                  |  | Title: |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit 3.3**
**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**
**OF**
**THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF**
**INCORPORATION OF**
**FIRST AVENUE NETWORKS, INC.**
First Avenue Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), does hereby certify asfollows:
FIRST: Article IV of the Corporation’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is herebyamended to read in its entirety as set forth below:
The total number of shares of stock that this Corporation shall have authority to issue is Onehundred million (100,000,000) shares of Common Stock, $.001 par value per share (“CommonStock”). The number of authorized shares of Common Stock may be increased or decreased (but notbelow the number of shares thereof then outstanding) by the affirmative vote of the holders ofa majority of the outstanding capital stock of the Corporation entitled to vote, irrespectiveof the provisions of Section 242(b)(2) of the DGCL.
SECOND: The foregoing amendment was duly adopted by the stockholders of the Corporation at itsannual meeting on June 7, 2004 in accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of theState of Delaware.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Certificate to be duly executed in itscorporate name on this 7th day of June 2004.      FIRST AVENUE NETWORKS, INC.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2679 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2679

   To suspend temporarily the duty on stainless steel rail car body 
                                shells.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2000

 Mr. Daschle (for Mr. Breaux) introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on stainless steel rail car body 
                                shells.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
    (a)  In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in the 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.xx.xx        Stainless steel   Free             No change        No change        On or before 12/
                         rail car body                                                        31/2003         ''
                         shells for                                                                            .
                         gallery type,
                         bi-level
                         trailer coaches
                         (138-passenger
                         capacity)
                         (provided for
                         in the
                         subheading
                         8607.99.1000)..

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 2.2  AMENDMENT TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT  THIS AMENDMENT TO ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT (this Amendment)is entered into as of March 31, 2011, by and between Capstone Turbine Corporation, a Delaware corporation (Buyer), and Calnetix Power Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and successor in interest to Calnetix Power Solutions, Inc. (the Seller).  RECITALS:  WHEREAS, Buyer and Seller entered into that certain Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of February 1, 2010 (the Asset Purchase Agreement),pursuant to which Seller agreed to sell, transfer, convey, assign and deliver, and Buyer agreed to purchase, as of March 31, 2011, all of Sellers right, title and interest in and to (i) all Manufacturing Equipment, except as otherwise set forth on Schedule 3.5(c) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, (ii) all remaining Inventory listed on Schedule 3.13(a) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, and (iii) any remaining Buyer Approved Post-Closing Purchases;  WHEREAS, this Amendment is executed in accordance with Section 7.7 of the Asset Purchase Agreement;  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and agreements set forth herein and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:  1.             Definitions. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Asset Purchase Agreement.  2.             Amendment to Asset Purchase Agreement. Buyer and Seller hereby agree that the introduction to Section 2.1(c) of the Asset Purchase Agreement shall be amended with additions indicated by double-underlined text and deletions indicated by strike-through text as follows:  (c)         On March 31, 2011  a mutually agreeable date no later than April 29, 2011 (the Second Closing Date), Buyeragrees to purchase and acquire from Seller, and Seller agrees to sell, transfer, assign, convey, and deliver to Buyer (at Buyers expense):  3.             Effect of Amendment. Except as amended hereby, all terms and provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement and this Amendment, the provisions of this Amendment shall control.  4.             Severability. Every provision of this Amendment is intended to be severable. If any term or provision of this Amendment is illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Amendment.  5.             Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts all of which together shall constitute one and the same Amendment.  [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]  1


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed in their names as of the date first above written.   BUYER:CAPSTONE TURBINE CORPORATIONBy:
/s/ Edward ReichName:
Edward ReichTitle:
CFOSELLER:CALNETIX   POWER SOLUTIONS, LLCBy:
/s/ Vatche ArtinianName:
Vatche ArtinianTitle:
President
  2
##### 



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 I, Javed Latif, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of En Pointe Technologies, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, that: (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); 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: December 27, 2004 /s/ Javed Latif
Javed Latif
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
DISMISS and Opinion Filed June 23, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00042-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF D.P.B. AND D.Z.B., MINOR CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 219-52923-2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns and Justices Pedersen, III, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated May 8, 2023 we 

informed appellant her brief was overdue and directed her to file her brief within ten 

days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of 

this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed her brief or 

otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

230042F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF D.P.B. AND 

D.Z.B., MINOR CHILDREN 

No. 05-23-00042-CV 

 On Appeal from the 219th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 219-52923-

2021. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Kennedy participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered June 23, 2023
#### Francis A. Bird, Appellant, v. City of Buffalo, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

All concurred.
v150341_10-719 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


     

    Exhibit
10.71.4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,097
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             170
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     53,736
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          12,600
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            12,330
<LOANS>                                        191,632
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,013
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 267,553
<DEPOSITS>                                     188,113
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                725
<LONG-TERM>                                     58,724
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,978
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 267,553
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,466
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,149
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,615
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,280
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,001
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,614
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       18
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,150
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    600
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         402
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       402
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.57
<LOANS-NON>                                        202
<LOANS-PAST>                                       918
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    885
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   976
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,013
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               252
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            761


</TABLE>
[Cite as State v. Smith , 2015-Ohio-3828.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2015-T-0079 - vs - : LARRY SMITH, : Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2014 CR 00387. Judgment: Appeal dismissed.

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Larry Smith, pro se, PID: A671-308, Lorain Correctional Institution, 2075 South Avon Belden Road, Grafton, OH 44044 (Defendant-Appellant).

COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J. {¶1} On July 17, 2015, appellant, Larry Smith, pro se, filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal, pursuant to App.R. 5(A), with this court. No notice of appeal was filed with the trial court. It appears that appellant is appealing from the trial court’s May 19, 2015 entry convicting him of attempted felonious assault and sentencing him to serve thirty-six months in prison. {¶2} No brief or response in opposition to the motion for leave has been filed. {¶3} App.R. 5(A) provides:2 {¶4} “After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases: {¶5} “(a) Criminal proceedings; {¶6} “(b) Delinquency proceedings; and {¶7} “(c) Serious youthful offender proceedings. {¶8} “(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right . Concurrently with the filing of the motion, the movant shall file with the clerk of the trial court a notice of appeal in the form prescribed by App.R. 3 and shall file a copy of the notice of the appeal in the court of appeals. The movant also shall furnish an additional copy of the notice of appeal and a copy of the motion for leave to appeal to the clerk of the court of appeals who shall serve the notice of appeal and the motions upon the prosecuting attorney. ” (Emphasis added.) {¶9} In the present case, appellant has not complied with App.R. 5(A) because he failed to file a notice of appeal in the trial court concurrently with the filing of his motion for leave to appeal. See State v. Fisher , 46 Ohio App.2d 279 (1975); State v. Pavisich, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2014-P-0028, 2014-Ohio-5313. Therefore, appellant’s present motion is procedurally defective, and he has failed to invoke this court’s jurisdiction. {¶10} We note that appellant is not barred from filing a new motion for leave to appeal along with a notice of appeal in accordance with the rules of court.3 {¶11} Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant’s pro se motion for leave to file a delayed appeal is hereby overruled. {¶12} Appeal dismissed.

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J., concurs, DIANE V. GRENDELL, J., concurs in judgment only.
#### Churchill C. Macray, Appellant, v. Julia E. Fowler, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-99777 and Form S-3 No. 333-99777-01) of Crescent Real Estate
Equities Limited Partnership and Crescent Finance Company of our report dated
March 14, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited Partnership, Crescent Real
Estate Equities Limited Partnership management's assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited
Partnership included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2004.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Dallas, Texas
March 24, 2005
#### Luigi Franco, Respondent, v. Max Radt, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
#### J. H. WISHEK, Respondent, v. WILLIAM HILDENBRAND as Mayor, and Christ Spitzer, Christ Schock, C. J. Eisenbeisz, Reinhold Schaber, John Schmidt, L. Walker, as Members of the City Council of the City of Ashley, McIntosh County, North Dakota, and the City of Ashley, McIntosh County, North Dakota, a Municipal Corporation, Appellants.

(204 *N. W.*364.)

Controlled *by*prior case.

This case is governed by tlio decision rendered in Enderson v. Hildenbrand et ai. ante, 533, decided at this tenn.

Opinion filed May 2, 1925.

Rehearing denied May 25, 1925.

*673Appeal from the District Court of McIntosh County, *Wolfe,*J.

Affirmed.

*Fronz*Shubech, for appellants.

*Sekneller, Heder, .& Schneller*and *Purcell & Slallery,*amicus cruda?.

*Wished- & 'Wishelc, A. A. Liulwigs, Lauder & Lauder,*and *II. P. Pe mhu¡Ion,*for respondent.

Burke, J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiff, under chapter ll¿ of the Session Laws of 1923, to disconnect 160 acres of land belonging to the plaintiff from the city of Ashley in the county of McIntosh and State of North Dakota. The petition, proof of hearing of .petition before the city council, decision of tire city council, and the decision of the judge of the district court on certiorari, are in all things tic same as in the case of Enderson v. Hildebrand, ante, 533, decided at this term, and which decision governs and controls the decision in this case. The decision of the lower court on certiorari is in all things affirmed.

hbtstiaNsoN, Oh. *J.,*and Birukeel, JoiiNsoN, and Nuessue, JL, concur.