alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WILLIAM J. PECK, Survivor, etc., Respondent, *v.*JOHN M. GARDNER and JEROME B. WEIANT, Appellants.

*Oontraet*— execution *of*, *by agent*— - *“ A. J. L., agent for G-. é W.”*— *binds agent, not principal.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.

The action was brought to recover damages for the breach of an alleged executory contract, by which the defendants agreed to sell and deliver certain brick to the plaintiff. Upon the trial a paper purporting to give the terms of the contract was produced, which was made “between Albert G. Lawson, agent of John M. Gardner, and Jerome Weiant, brick manufacturers of Haverstraw, Rockland county, State of New York, party of the first part, and the firm of William J. *&*J. S. Peck, of the city of New York,” and executed as follows:

“ ALBERT J. LAWSON, [l. s.]

“Agent for Gardner & Weiant.

“ WM. J. & J. S. PECK.” [l. b.]

■ The defendants’ counsel objected to the reception of this paper in evidence, on the ground that it was not properly executed to charge the principal. The court admitted the evidence, and the judge, in his charge to the jury authorized them to determine whether it was executed in such a way as to entitle it to be read in evidence, and said that if so executed, then it would be necessary to decide whether Lawson was authorized to sign it.

With reference to this, the court at General Term said: “ There was no dispute about the manner of the execution. It was patent on the face of the paper. This was about the extent of Lawson’s authority, doubtless. The submission of the question stated to the *705jury was erroneous. It was not for them, but for the court to determine it, and the adjudications on the subject establish the proposition that an agreement executed as that was, becomes that of the agent, and is not that of the principal. *(Townsend*v. *Corning,*23 Wend., 435; *Spencer*v. *Field,*10 id., 88; *Stone*v. Wood, 7 Cow., 454; *Bogwrt*v. *De*Bussey, 6 J ohns., 94; *Sherman*v. *N. Y. C. B. B. Co.,*22 Barb., 239; *De Witt*v. *Walton,*5 Seld., 571.)”

*C. P. Hoffman*for the appellants. *J. S. Lawrence*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Buady, J.

Davis, P. J., and Daniels, J., agreed in the result.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
Exhibit 32.2


CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Nutrition 21, Inc., a New York
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Paul
Intlekofer, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
does certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350), that to 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.



/s/ Paul Intlekofer
--------------------------------------
Paul Intlekofer
Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nutrition 21, Inc. and will be retained by Nutrition 21, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5056 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:16:40 Page 1 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5056 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:16:40 Page 2 of

3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5056 Filed: 12/10/19 Entered: 12/10/19 12:16:40 Page 3 of

3
#### Edward R. Ladew and Another, Appellants, v. Charles D. Rathbone and Another, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs and disbursements on opinion of trial court. No opinion
#### JANET ANDERSON, by her Next Friend, OLETA ANDERSON v. CHARLES LINDSAY LUTHER.

(Filed 29 October, 1958.)

1. Automobiles § 41s—

Evidence tending to show that defendant motorist overtook and struck a bicyclist who was traveling in the same direction, one or two feet from the edge of her right side of the highway, is sufficient to be submitted to the jury, defendant’s evidence in conflict not being considered in passing upon motion to nonsuit.

2. Appeal and Error § 38—

A contention not based on any exception or assignment of error will not be considered.

Parker, J., not sitting.

Appeal by defendant from *Preyer, J.,*February Term, 1958, of Davidson.

Personal injury action in which the jury, having answered issues of negligence and contributory negligence in favor of plaintiff, awarded damages in the amount of $1,500.00.

Plaintiff was injured September 22, 1957, as the result of a collision on Highway 109, near Denton, between an automobile operated by defendant and a bicycle on which plaintiff was riding. Both vehicles were traveling south, the automobile overtaking the bicycle.

*129The only evidence was that offered by plaintiff. According to her testimony, she was riding on her right (west) side of the highway in a straight course, one or two feet from the edge of the pavement, when defendant’s car overtook and struck her. Defendant, relying on testimony elicited on cross-examination of the investigating State Highway Patrolman relating to physical conditions and to declarations of defendant, contended that the collision occurred near the center of the highway and that shortly before the collision “the bicycle took to the left” into the path of defendant’s car.

Judgment was entered in accordance with the verdict. Defendant excepted and appealed.

*W. H. Steed for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Otway Burton and Don Davis for defendant, appellant.*

PeR Curiam.

Assignments of error brought forward in defendant’s brief are based on exceptions (1) to the overruling of his motion for judgment of nonsuit and (2) to designated portions of the charge. It is quite plain that the court’s action in overruling defendant’s motion for judgment of nonsuit was correct; and careful consideration of each assignment directed to a designated portion of the charge fails to disclose prejudicial error.

It is noted that defendant contends that the court erred in failing to charge the jury in certain respects set forth in his brief. However, the appeal presents no question of law relating to these matters; for these contentions are not based on any exception or assignment of error. *Rigsbee v. Perkins,*242 N.C. 502, 87 S.E. 2d 926; *Moore v. Crosswell,*240 N.C. 473, 82 S.E. 2d 208.

No error.

Parker, J., not sitting.
Letter, dated as of June 14, 2007



 Exhibit 10.41 
 ARAMARK Corporation 
 1101 Market Street 
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 
 Hyatt Corporation 
 c/o Global Hyatt Corporation 
 71 South Wacker Drive 
 Chicago, Illinois 60606 
 Attention: General Counsel 
 June 14, 2007 
 VIA FEDEX AND TELECOPIER 
  

	 	Re:	Indemnification of Hyatt Corporation 

 Gentlemen:

 Reference is made to that Indenture of Lease (the “Lease Agreement”), dated as October 15, 1979, by and between the County of Nassau
and Hyatt Management Corporation of New York, Inc. (“HMC”). Pursuant to the terms of the Lease Agreement, Hyatt Corporation (“Hyatt”) guaranteed certain obligations of HMC. HMC’s successor subsequently assigned
its rights and obligations under the Lease Agreement to SMG, a Pennsylvania general partnership (“SMG”). In connection with and as a condition to the acquisition of SMG by affiliates of American Capital, SMG agreed to indemnify
Hyatt for its obligations under the Lease Agreement, as set forth in an indemnification letter agreement dated as of June 14, 2007 (the “SMG Indemnification Agreement”), which indemnification obligation is supported by a letter
of credit as required thereunder (the “L/C”). 
 In order to facilitate the acquisition of SMG by affiliates of American Capital, ARAMARK
Corporation (“ARAMARK”) hereby agrees to indemnify Hyatt and its directors, officers, employees, affiliates, successors, permitted assigns, agents and representatives (collectively, the “Indemnitees”) from and against
fifty percent (50%) of any and all Losses (as defined in the SMG Indemnification Agreement) with respect to which Hyatt has not been made whole by SMG (or otherwise); provided, however, that ARAMARK shall not have
any obligations or liabilities pursuant to this letter agreement unless and until Hyatt has exhausted all of its remedies under the SMG Indemnification Agreement and the L/C. 







 Very truly yours, 
  

			
	ARAMARK CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christopher S. Holland

	Name:	 	Christopher S. Holland
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President and Treasurer

 Acknowledged and Agreed: 
  

			
	HYATT CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kirk Rose

	Name:	 	Kirk Rose
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President Finance and Treasurer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

EXHIBIT 1-K

Rule 21 Readiness Services

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 1

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 2

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 3

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 4

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 5

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 6

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 7

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 8

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page 9

of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

10 of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

11 of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

12 of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

13 of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

14 of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

15 of 16
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4602-12 Filed: 11/07/19 Entered: 11/07/19 19:32:50 Page

16 of 16
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

      In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Summit
Environmental Corporation, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), I, B. Keith Parker, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(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:  August 10, 2004

                                   /s/ B. Keith Parker
                                   ------------------------------------------
                                   B. Keith Parker
                                   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer


      The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4821 Filed: 11/20/19 Entered: 11/20/19 13:27:50 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4821 Filed: 11/20/19 Entered: 11/20/19 13:27:50 Page 2 of

2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6637** 

JIMMY LEE WILLIAMS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. WARDEN LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg
. Mary G. Lewis , District Judge. ( 5:15

- cv - 02106

- MGL )

Submitted : August 18, 2016 Decided: August 13, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN , Circuit Jud ges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jimmy Lee Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jimmy Lee Williams seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny relief on Williams’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The district court’ s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatabl e, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSE D
#### Walter G. Rogers, Respondent, v. Colin H. Ball, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

All concurred, except Sewell, J., dissenting, on the ground, that no contract of purchase was proven.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0267

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DAVID LOUIS TRENK,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 30, 2020, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 23 2020

11/23/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0267
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5331 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 73839 Gorgonio Drive in Twentynine Palms, 

California, as the ‘‘Colonel M.J. ‘Mac’ Dube, USMC 

Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5331 EH

1 SECTION 1. COLONEL M.J. ‘‘MAC’’ DUBE, USMC POST OF2 FICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 73839 Gorgonio Drive in 

5 Twentynine Palms, California, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Colonel M.J. ‘Mac’ Dube, USMC Post Of7 fice Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Colonel M.J. ‘Mac’ 

12 Dube, USMC Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 

2014. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5331 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostM.J. ‘Mac’ Dube, USMC Post Office Building’’. Twentynine Palms, California, as the ‘‘Colonel al Service located at 73839 Gorgonio Drive in
EXHIBIT 11.1
 
 Three Months Ended
    
    Six Months EndedApril 30,
    
    April 30,2007
    
    2008
    
    2007
    
    2008(Restated)
    
    
    
    
    
    (Restated)Numerator:Net (loss)
    
    $
    (402,323
    )
    
    $
    9,891
    
    
    $
    (1,373,683
    )
    
    $
    (666,156
    )Denominator:Denominator for basic earnings per
share- weighted-average shares
    
    
    14,275,372
    
    
    
    14,323,458
    
    
    
    14,268,267
    
    
    
    14,320,179Effect of dilutive securities:Employee stock options
    
    
    
    
    
    
    259,524
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Restricted stock
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Warrants
    
    
    
    
    
    
    84,624
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Denominator for diluted earnings
per share adjusted
weighted-average shares and
assumed conversions
    
    
    14,275,372
    
    
    
    14,667,606
    
    
    
    14,268,267
    
    
    
    14,320,179Basic and diluted (loss) per share:Basic and diluted (loss) per share
    
    $
    (0.03
    )
    
    $
    0.00
    
    
    $
    (0.10
    )
    
    $
    (0.05
    )
EXHIBIT 32.1  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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Stakool, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three month period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kyle Gotshalk, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:   (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and   (2) The information contained in the Report fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: May 14, 2010By:/s/ Kyle GotshalkKyle GotshalkPrincipal Executive Officer
#### STATE v. JOHN SAWYER.

(Filed 12 March, 1930.)

Criminal Law I g — Instruction in this case held to comply with C. S., 564 and to he free from error.

An introductory statement by the trial court in his instruction to the jury in a prosecution for murder that he would not take up the time of the jury to read from his notes of the testimony in the case in the absence of request of counsel is not error when he has nevertheless stated the evidence in a plain and correct manner and declared and explained the law arising thereon, C. S., 564, and judgment upon the verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree will be sustained when the record is free from error.

Appeal by defendant from *Devin, J.,*at September Term, 1929, of MARTIN.

Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the prisoner with the murder of one J. I. Britton.

Verdict: Gtiilty of murder in the first degree.

Judgment: Death by electrocution.

The prisoner appeals, assigning errors.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Na'sh for the State.*

*H.*W. *Stubbs and B. A. Gritcher for defendant.*

Stacy, C. J.

On the afternoon of 26 July,'1929, the prisoner ambushed himself under a cherry tree in a hedgerow and shot the deceased in the face as he came within a distance of about twelve feet. The prisoner then reloaded his gun, stepped over the fence, or hedgerow, followed the deceased as he went “kinder bent over” down a tobacco row, for a distance of approximately thirty yards, and shot him again. Here the deceased fell, between two tobacco rows, where he died soon thereafter.

The prisoner testified that he “felt like it was necessary for him to shoot the deceased in order to protect his own life,” but the case is free from any such necessity, real or apparent.

The principal assignment of error is to the following statement made by the judge at the beginning of his charge :

> “I will not take up your time to read from my notes of the testimony in the absence of a request from counsel on either side. I will state the evidence to you as concisely as I can for the purpose of refreshing your recollection, reminding you that it is your duty to remember all the evidence, whether I call it to your attention or not.”

*460There was no error in this statement. The evidence was simple and direct, and notwithstanding the introductory remark of the judge, of which the prisoner complains, he nevertheless stated the evidence in a plain and correct manner and declared and explained the law arising thereon. C. S., 564. The record is free from error, hence the verdict and judgment must be upheld.

No error.
# Great Outdoors Month, 2010 

America’s vast and varied outdoor spaces are a source of great national pride, and we have long strived to protect them for future generations. Our lands and waters provide countless opportunities for exploration, recreation, and reflection, whether in solitude or with family and friends. During Great Outdoors Month, we renew our enduring commitment to protect our natural landscapes, to enjoy them, and to promote active lifestyles for ourselves and our children.

Our outdoor spaces include the farms, ranches, rivers, forests, and working lands that are integral to our culture and economy, as well as our National Parks, local parks, fishing holes, beaches, and other favorite spots that provide space for us to stay active and healthy. These places are especially important today, as an increasing number of Americans, especially children, fall into unhealthy sedentary lifestyles.

This year, I launched the America’s Great Outdoors Initiative to foster innovative, community-driven strategies to protect our natural spaces, and to reconnect Americans with our great outdoors. We are addressing the conservation challenges and opportunities of the 21st century through partnerships with ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and conservationists; State, local, private, and tribal leaders; educational and service programs like AmeriCorps; and business representatives and other stakeholders. To learn how you can join this effort, visit: www.DOI.gov/​AmericasGreatOutdoors.

                    The America’s Great Outdoors Initiative also builds upon                     *Let’s Move*, First Lady Michelle Obama’s effort to help our children eat more nutritious foods, lead healthier lives, and increase their physical activity. Exploring beyond the walls of their homes and schools will help inspire our children to move, run, play, and thrive. I encourage all Americans to visit www.LetsMove.gov to learn more.                

In these difficult economic times, renewing our commitment to our natural places will foster jobs in the tourism and recreation industries while conserving our great outdoors. Moreover, as Americans, we are responsible for protecting our heritage, including the raw beauty of our lands and waters. Together, let us rise to meet that responsibility and safeguard our cherished outdoor spaces for our children and grandchildren.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Great Outdoors Month. I urge all Americans to explore the great outdoors and to continue our Nation’s tradition of conserving our lands for future generations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

[FR Doc. 2010-13666

Billing code 3195-W0-P