alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John D. Hartel, Plaintiff, *v.*Henry Kobb, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Suffolk County,

May 11, 1956.

*Reilly & Like*for plaintiff.

*Glick & Wachtel*for defendant.

Howard T. Hogan, J.

Plaintiff in an action on a promissory note moves for summary judgment. The answer admits the making of a note for $40,000, which on its face provided for interest of 4% per annum, but alleges a superseding oral agreement to pay interest of $100 per week plus *3%*per annum, which, constituting usury, is a complete defense. In support of his motion plaintiff charges that he was unrepresented by counsel when the agreements were made and that defendant’s attorney not only prepared the note but was custodian of certain collateral which he surrendered without protest to plaintiff when informed of defendant’s default despite his knowledge of all the facts surrounding the transaction. Plaintiff’s claim that this amounts to an estoppel is strengthened by the admission of defendant’s attorney that he 'was present, presumably to advise defendant, when, he says, the parties agreed orally upon the terms of the loan, and agreed to usurious conditions superseding the written note. The admitted participation of this attorney, active or passive, may well bring this transaction within the rule stated in *Haviland*v. *Willets*(141 N. Y. 35, 50) that: “It is equally well settled that where there is a mistake of law on one side, and either positive fraud on the other, or inequitable, unfair and deceptive conduct, which tends to confirm the mistake and conceal the truth, it is the right and duty of equity to afford relief.” Certainly the role played by this attorney should be examined. However the pleadings in their present state do not raise this issue. Upon the state of facts before the *179court, and limited by the complaint, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment must be denied. He may, of course, plead over if he is so advised. The counterclaim demanding the return of defendant’s collateral may not be dismissed on the ground that such claim is barred if not prosecuted within one year (General Business Law, § 372). It has been held that this period of limitation applies only to suits for the return of property given as consideration for a loan, in excess of legal interest, and not property given as security. *(Gilleran*v. *Colby,*164 App. Div. 608.)
#### William Francis BENTZEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48005.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 3, 1994.

Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and KENNEDY and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the trial court’s order overruling his Rule 27.26 (repealed 1987) motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Rule 84.16(b).
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

MULTIMEDIA PATENT TR UST, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A ., INC. , AND LG ELECTRONICS MOBIL ECOMM U.S.A., INC., Defendants

- Appellees.

______________________

2013

- 1621

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in No. 12

- CV

- 2731, Judge Marilyn L. Huff.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

K

ATHLEEN M. S ULLIVAN , Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, of New York, New York, argued for plai ntiff

- appellant. With her on the brief were S ANFORD I. W EISBUR ST ; P HILIP C. S TERNHELL , of Washington, DC; F REDERICK A. L ORIG , S USAN R. E STRICH , C HRISTOPHER A. M ATHEWS , and B RUCE R. Z ISSER , of Los Angeles, Califo rnia.M ICHAEL J. M C K EON , Fish & Richardson P.C., of Washington, DC, argued for defendants -appellees . With him on the brief were J USTIN M. B ARNES and L ARA S. G ARNER , of San Diego, California; and F RANK P. P ORCELLI , of Boston, Massachusetts. Of counsel was J UANITA R OSE B ROOKS , of San Diego , California; R ICHARD A LEX S TERBA , of Washington, DC; and K ELLY C ATHERINE H UNSAKER , of Redwood City , California.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE , M OORE , and C HEN , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 17, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
1 WO 

2 

3 

4 

·5 

6 

7 

.8 

9 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

1 O United States of America, No. CR-17-08265-001-PCT-DJH 

11 Plaintiff, ORDER 

12 v. 

13 Jayson Lee Yazzie, 

14 Defendant. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et. seq. a 

detention hearing was held. The defendant is ordered detained pending an intake 

assessment for placement at Crossroads in Phoenix, Arizona or other facility as 

designated by Pretrial Services. Should defendant qualify for such placement, defendant 

shall be released upon_ conditions set, by this Court, including pretrial residency at said 

facility, as conditions do exist which would reasonably assure the safety of others and the 

appearance of the defendant. Should defendant not so qualify, the release conditions set 

by this Court shall be vacated and defendant shall be detained pending trial as there are 

\ 

no conditions or combination of conditions which would reasonably assure .the safety of 

others or the appearance of the defendant. 

The Pretrial Services Officer is ordered to timely notify this Court of the 

defendant's intake assessment results, and if found acceptable, the date and time the 

II 
1 facility will provide transportation from the Sandra Day O'Connor Courthouse for the 

2 defendant. 

3 Dated this 8th day ofNovember, 2017. 

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 

-2-
EXHIBIT 31.2
 
 I, Edward W. Savarese certify that:
  1.
I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of Com-Guard.com, 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; 
 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; 
 4.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 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 report is being prepared;
 
 (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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
 
 (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
 
 5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrant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 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.


DATED: October 13, 2004
/s/ Edward SavareseEDWARD W. SAVARESE
Acting Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

      <ARTICLE>     5
      <LEGEND>      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                    EXTRACTED FROM THE CDT INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR
                    THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
                    IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
                    STATEMENTS.
      <MULTIPLIER>  1

      <S>                              <C>
      <PERIOD-TYPE>                        YEAR
      <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1999
      <PERIOD-START>                      JAN-1-1999
      <PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-1999
      <CASH>                                     819
      <SECURITIES>                                 0
      <RECEIVABLES>                                0
      <ALLOWANCES>                                 0
      <INVENTORY>                                  0
      <CURRENT-ASSETS>                           819
      <PP&E>                                       0
      <DEPRECIATION>                               0
      <TOTAL-ASSETS>                             819
      <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       51
      <BONDS>                                      0
      <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
      <PREFERRED>                                  0
      <COMMON>                                 1,071
      <OTHER-SE>                               3,213
      <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               819
      <SALES>                                      0
      <TOTAL-REVENUES>                             0
      <CGS>                                        0
      <TOTAL-COSTS>                            2,297
      <OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0
      <LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
      <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
      <INCOME-PRETAX>                        (2,297)
      <INCOME-TAX>                                 0
      <INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (2,297)
      <DISCONTINUED>                               0
      <EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
      <CHANGES>                                    0
      <NET-INCOME>                           (2,297)
      <EPS-BASIC>                           (0.00)
      <EPS-DILUTED>                           (0.00)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12822]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy


State Energy Advisory Board, Open Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463; 86 Stat. 770), notice is hereby given of the 
following meeting:

    Name: State Energy Advisory Board.
    Date and Time: June 27, 1996 from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, and June 
28, 1996 from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm.
    Place: The Industrial Electrotechnology Laboratory, room 2427, 
NCSU College of Textiles, Research Drive, Raleigh, NC 27695. 919-
515-3941.
    Contact: William J. Raup, Office of Building Technology, State, 
and Community Programs, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, Telephone 202/586-2214.
    Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant 
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals 
and objectives and programmatic and administrative policies, and to 
otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as designated in 
the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 
101-440).
    Tentative Agenda: Briefings on, and discussions of:
    <bullet> The FY 1997 Federal budget request for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs.
    <bullet> Issues related to DOE National Laboratories, relating 
to deployment of technology through the States.
    <bullet> Review and approval of any committee activity.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact William J. Raup at the 
address or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral 
presentations must be received five days prior to the meeting; 
reasonable provision will be made to include the statements in the 
agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct the meeting 
in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information 
Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on May 16, 1996.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Acting Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-12822 Filed 5-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5892 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5892

  To designate the Federal building located at 985 Michigan Avenue in 
  Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building'', and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 3, 2023

 Ms. Tlaib (for herself, Mr. Thanedar, Mr. Bergman, Mr. Moolenaar, Ms. 
  Scholten, Mr. Huizenga, Mr. Walberg, Mrs. Dingell, Ms. Slotkin, Mr. 
   Kildee, Mrs. McClain, Mr. James, and Ms. Stevens) introduced the 
                             following bill

                            October 25, 2023

     Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the Federal building located at 985 Michigan Avenue in 
  Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building'', and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ROSA PARKS FEDERAL BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building located at 985 Michigan 
Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 
``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.
    (c) Repeals.--
            (1) Public Law 109-98 (119 Stat. 2168) is repealed.
            (2) Sections 1 and 2 of Public Law 109-101 (119 Stat. 2171) 
        are repealed.
                                 <all>
```
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00322-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-2021-03143-JP

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

DJIBRIL JACKSON, Appellant

V.

MOHAMMED KHAN, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant’s brief was due on January 13, 2022, but no brief was filed. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 38.6(a). 

On January 31, 2022, we notified Appellant that his brief had not been filed as 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure require. See id. We warned that we could dismiss the 

appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, Appellant filed a brief along with

an accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimeliness. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). More than ten days have passed, but we have not 

received a response.

Because Appellant has failed to file a brief, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: March 3, 2022
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF 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, Brent M. Cook, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge, the Annual Report of Raser Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, 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 Raser Technologies, Inc.



|                    |  |                                                                    
|------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 1, 2008 |  | /s/    BRENT M.
COOK                                               
|                    |  | Brent M. Cook Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)



---

CERTIFICATION OF 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, Martin F. Petersen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of Raser Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, 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
Raser Technologies, Inc.



|                    |  |                                                                                        
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 1, 2008 |  | /s/    MARTIN F.
PETERSEN                                                              
|                    |  | Martin F. Petersen Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

A signed original of each of the written statements above required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Raser Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Raser Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Rafael CASTILLO, Appellant, v. Eloise W. BROWN, Respondent.

No. WD 50790.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 26, 1996.

Venessa J. Maxwell and Henri J. Watson, Kansas City, for appellant.

James S. Stubbs and Cary Miller, Birmingham, Furry, Smith & Stubbs, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and ULRICH and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Rafael Castillo filed suit against Eloise W. Brown for damages arising from an automobile collision at an intersection. The jury entered a verdict which assessed sixty percent of the fault to Mr. Castillo and forty percent of the fault to Ms. Brown. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Castillo for $5,600. Mr. Castillo appeals, contending the trial court erred in submitting the jury instruction which defined failure to yield the right-of-way and in denying his motion for a new trial, in that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and there was insufficient evidence to support it.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Order filed October 18, 2011

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00612

- CV

______________ JAVIER GONZALEZ , Appellant

V.
CHAMPION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2009

- 59428



### O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment signed March 30, 2011 . Appellant filed a timely
motion for new trial

. The notice of appeal was due June 28, 2011

. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant, however, filed his notice of appeal on July 13, 2011, a date within 15 days of the
due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is A necessarily implied @ when the perfecting instrument is filed within fifteen days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is still obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Mill er v.2

Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd. , 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.

C Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).
Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal on or before 10 days after the date of t his order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3;10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM