alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CLOSTIO’S HEIRS v. SINCLAIR REFINING CO. et al.

No. 3008.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1948.

For former opinion, see 36 So.2d 283.

- J. Minos Simon, of Lafayette, for appellant.

Helm & Simon, of New Iberia, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion and judgment in this case was rendered on June 30, 1948. Notice of the judgment was sent *'to*counsel for plaintiffs immediately by Registered Mail, which is the usual method of giving notice of decisions rendered by this Court. The Registered Notice of the judgment was received, by Counsel for plaintiff on July 2, 1948, as shown by the Return Registered Receipt from the Post Office Department bearing his personal signature, showing delivery by the Post Office to him of the notice on July 2, 1948. The application, for rehearing was not filed in this matter until July 29, 1948. Attached to the application for rehearing is an affidavit by the attorney for the plaintiff and the secretary of the plaintiff’s attorney showing that after receipt of the notice of the rendition of judgment in this matter, counsel dictated his application for rehearing on July 14th, and because of a misinterpretation of his instructions by his secretary, the original application was kept in the office and was not sent out until July 27, 1948.

A motion has been filed by the attorneys for the defendants in this matter asking that the application for rehearing be dismissed and objecting thereto on the ground that it was filed too late and, therefore, cannot be considered by this Court.

There is no question in this case that due and prompt notice of the judgment rendered by this Court was received by counsel for plaintiff, and there is likewise no question presented as to the unfortunate misunderstanding which brought about the delay in the filing of the application for rehearing. However, in the case of Clark v. Delta Tank Manufacturing Company, La. App., 22 So.2d 135, the appellant did not file an application for a rehearing within the time fixed by the Constitution (Section 24, Article 7, Constitution of 1921), and a motion for an extension of time was filed asking for additional time within which to present the application. There had apparently been a change of attorneys which was assigned as an additional reason why the extension should be granted. This Court in that case stated:

> “It is impossible however for us to consider the motion for extension of time in which to file an application for rehearing as under the provisions of the State Constitution already referred to, judgments rendered by this court become- final and ex-*45ccutory on the fifteenth calendar day after rendition. If the application is not filed in time the court is powerless to grant additional delay in which to file it. Gautreaux v. Harang, 190 La. 1060, 183 So. 349.”

In the present case, due notice was received by plaintiff’s counsel, and the application was not filed until long after the delays had elapsed, and under the jurisprudence, this Court has no discretion in the matter and is unable to consider the application for rehearing.

The application for rehearing, therefore, cannot be considered.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference from the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506 as follows (ending time is approximate): 

Literature (application review): August 27, 2008. This meeting, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. DST, will be closed. This meeting has been scheduled on an emergency basis to address time sensitive issues. 

The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of February 21, 2007, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. 

Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/682-5691. 

Dated: August 13, 2008. 

Kathy Plowitz-Worden, 

Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.

[FR Doc. E8-19069 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
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 Annual Report of Gardner Denver, Inc.(the “Company”) onForm 10-K for theperiod ended December 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Ross J. Centanni, Chairman of theBoard, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant toRule 13a-14(b) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:(1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934, as amended; 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/ Ross J. Centanni       Ross J. Centanni     Chairman, President and          Chief Executive Officer     Gardner Denver, Inc.     March 14, 2006
87
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                               |                                                                      |                                               |
|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                                      |                                               |
|                               | By:                                                             | /s/              Thomas J.              Paup  |
|                               | Thomas J. Paup, Vice President - Finance and CFO(Chief Financial Officer) |
|                               |                                                                      |
| Date:                July 24, 2006 |                                                                      |

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       5,233,594
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,180,573
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,623,000
<INVENTORY>                                 12,367,265
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,731,941
<PP&E>                                      16,787,765
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,008,267
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             114,836,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       48,404,897
<BONDS>                                     38,892,273
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        3,944,247
<PREFERRED>                                 13,022,288
<COMMON>                                        18,953
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,188,126
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               114,836,554
<SALES>                                    125,131,088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           125,873,503
<CGS>                                       83,246,433
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               42,296,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,092,611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (8,520,118)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   245,342
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,765,460)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (306,092)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,071,552)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.66)


</TABLE>
#### Samuel Hawkins, Appellant, *v.*Philip Vineyard et al., Appellees.

APPEAL PROM PERRY.

Where a quarter section of land has been sold on execution as one tract, and the defendant has a title to but sixty-five acres of the tract, he cannot redeem the part to which he has title, by paying the proportionate price for which that part sold. The sale being an entire sale, must stand as such, or be wholly vacated.

This cause was heard before Underwood, Judge, at October term, 1851, of the Perry Circuit Court. The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of the case.

R. S. Nelson, for appellant.

R. F. Wingate, for appellees.

Treat, C. J.

This was a suit in chancery brought by Hawkins against Vineyard and Hoge. The bill alleged in substance, that Vineyard recovered a judgment against complainant, and sued out an execution thereon; that Hoge, as sheriff, levied the execution on a quarter section of land containing one hundred and sixty acres, and that Vineyard purchased the same at the sheriff’s sale for $160; that the complainant was the owner of sixty-five acres of the tract, but had no title whatever to the residue; that complainant, within twelve months from the sale, applied to Hoge to redeem the sixty-five acres, and offered to pay him $65 and interest thereon from the day of the sale at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, but Hoge refused to *27receive the money and allow the application; complainant brought the amount tendered into court, and prayed that he might be allowed to redeem the 'sixty-five acres. The court sustained a demurrer, and dismissed the bill.

The quarter section having been sold as one tract, and the complainant having title to but a part thereof, it would be highly inequitable to permit him to redeem that part, and leave the sale in full force as to the remaining portion. The sale was an entire sale, and it should be allowed to stand as such, or be wholly vacated. The complainant should have tendered the whole of the purchase-money and interest, and have redeemed the entire tract. He ought to put the creditor in as good a condition as he was in before the sale. He should give him the benefit of his purchase, or allow him to obtain full payment of his judgment. But the complainant seeks to redeem the sixty-five acres, and at the same time insists that the sale of the rest of the tract shall stand. He would thereby obtain a credit on the judgment by the sale of property in which he had no interest, and from which the creditor could receive no benefit. Equity will not tolerate such injustice. A party who seeks relief at the hands of a court of equity, must perform what is just and equitable on his part.

The decree is affirmed. *Decree affirmed.*
EXHIBIT
      13.1




YUCHENG
      TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED


Certification





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned, Weidong Hong, Chief Executive
      Officer of Yucheng Technologies Limited (the "Company"), hereby certifies,
      to
      his knowledge, that the Company's annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended
      December 31, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
      that
      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
      June 22, 2007




/s/
                Weidong HongName:
                Weidong HongTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
      document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                       3,126,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               36,862,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 6,126,000
<INVENTORY>                                 47,690,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           100,080,000
<PP&E>                                      65,488,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              34,359,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             136,555,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       41,280,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       166,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  82,395,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               136,555,000
<SALES>                                    101,933,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           103,929,000
<CGS>                                       61,791,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,465,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                57,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             233,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,674,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,166,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,508,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,508,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
        


</TABLE>
#### Mattie E. Sheppard, Appellant, v. Alfred Reynolds, Respondent.

The appeal herein was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to apply to the trial justice to correct the judgment. We think power to make the correction exists. Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Present — Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
EX-4.53



 Exhibit 4.53 

SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT 

TO THE EXCLUSIVE TECHNICAL CONSULTING AND SERVICE AGREEMENT 

This Supplementary Agreement (“Supplementary Agreement”) is made and entered into on January 2, 2014 (“Effective
date”) in Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China, by and between: 
 Party A: Shanghai Zhengtu Information Technology Co., Ltd. 

Address: 2/FL, Building No.29, 396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China 

Party B: Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Old Name: Shanghai Zhengtu Network Technology Co., Ltd.) 

Address: Room 708, Building No.29, 396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China 

WHEREAS, 
  

	1.	Party A and Party B entered into the Exclusive Technical Consulting and Service Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) on September 7, 2006 in Shanghai. According to the Original Agreement, Party B
agrees that, unless with prior written approval from Party A, Party B shall not hire any third party to provide to Party B any technical support listed in Attachment I of the Original Agreement or any similar technical support; 


 

	2.	Party B has reached an agreement with Shanghai Juhuo Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Juhuo Network”) that Juhuo Network will provide Party B with technical support, market consulting and development in relation
to Party B’s business 

 NOW, THEREFORE, adhering to the principles of equality and mutual benefit, and after friendly
negotiations, the Parties confirm as follows: 
  

	1.	Party A agrees Party B to hire Juhuo Network to provide Party B with technical support in relation to Party B’s business as well as market consulting and development as listed in Attachment I of the Original
Agreement or other similar technical support. Party B shall sign the relevant Technical Consulting and Service Agreement with Juhuo Network. 

  

	2.	Party B guarantees and promises that Party A shall have the right to request Party B and Juhuo Network at any time to terminate the Technical Consulting and Service Agreement and any other relevant agreements, without
incurring any legal liability. 

  

	3.	This Supplementary Agreement shall become effective immediately upon sealed by the Parties. 

  

					
	 Party A: Shanghai Juhuo
 Information
Technology Co., Ltd.
	  		  	 Party B: Shanghai Giant Network

Technology Co., Ltd.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

SERVICER CERTIFICATION

I, Paul C. Honda, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
10-K of Honda Auto Receivables 2006-1 Owner Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic
reports");

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole,
do 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, all the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the Servicer and
based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the
Servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of
Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the
Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in
all material respects; and

5. All the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for
asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of
compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be
included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of
noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on
Form 10-K.

     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: FDI Computer Consulting
Inc., dba FDI Collateral Management and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A..

Date: June 26, 2006

/s/ Paul C. Honda
-------------------------------------
Paul C. Honda
Assistant Vice President, Assistant
Secretary and Compliance Officer of
American Honda Finance Corporation
```
#### Frank Logerto, Appellant, v. Central Building Company, Respondent.

Order-affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Rich and Miller,‘JJ., concurred.
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 23.2




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    As independent auditors, we hereby consent to the use of our report, dated
February 13 1997, on the financial statements of Orgenics Ltd. included in this
Form 10-K, and to the incorporation of our report into Selfcare, Inc.'s
previously filed Registration Statement File Nos. 333-37961, 333-45535,
333-15583, 333-17855 and 333-45523, as amended.


                                        KOST,FORER AND GABBAY
                                        CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS (ISRAEL)
                                        A MEMBER OF ERNST & YOUNG INTERNATIONAL



March 28, 1999
Tel-Aviv, Israel
#### William BARASCH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 02-72949.

U.S. Tax Ct. No. 7271-OIL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2008.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

William Baraseh appeals pro se the Tax Court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, finding the Commissioner could proceed with his action to collect Barasch’s 1996 and 1997 federal income tax and imposing sanctions against Baraseh.

The Tax Court properly concluded that Baraseh was precluded from challenging his underlying tax liability during his Collection Due Process (“CDP”) hearing because he received a statutory notice of deficiency, 28 U.S.C. §§ 6320; 6330(c)(2)(B), and that the Internal Revenue Service Appeals Officer who conducted the CDP hearing properly verified the existence and propriety of the tax assessments, 28 U.S.C. § 6330(c)(1). The Tax Court also properly determined that Barasch failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact. *Hansen v. United States,*7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir.1993). Accordingly, the Tax Court correctly granted the Commissioner’s summary judgment motion. Finally, the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions against Baraseh pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 6673.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### George Humphreys, Respondent, v. The Douglas Fir Lumber Company, Appellant.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.