alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mrs. Katie Roth FRANZ, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. R. P. FARNSWORTH & CO., Inc., Defendant and Appellant.

No. 13892.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 15, 1932.

Harry M. Mayo, Jr., and Frank T. Doyle, botb -of Ne.w Orleans, for appellant.

Prowell, McBride & Ray and Welton P. Mqujpn, all, of New Orleans, for appellee.

WE STERFIELD, J.

Plaintiff is the owner of the premises No. 228 North’ Rampart street. ¡She brings this suit against R. P. Farnsworth &, Company, Inc., a contracting firm, for damages .alleged to have, been caused to her property by the defendant as the result of the removal of a party wall between her property and a building known as the Young Men’s Gymnastic Club, which was demolished by defendant in the execution of the contract which it had for the erection of a new building. The amount claimed is $167.39, for which plaintiff obtained judgment, as prayed for below, and defendant has appealed.

It appears that, prior to the destruction of the party wall, plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement, whereby the defendant undertook to indemnify plaintiff for any damages which might be caused thereby. Plaintiff’s claim is resisted upon the ground that the damages claimed did not result from the destruction of the wall, but were repairs made necessary by the condition of plaintiff’s property existing before the removal of the wall.

The record is unusually large, considering the amount involved, and the case has been vigorously prosecuted and defended by able counsel. After a consideration of the conflicting testimony, it is our opinion that the trial court correctly found that the evidence preponderated in favor of the plaintiff. Consequently, and for the reasons herein assigned,

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
B.9. Number of Agricultural Bank Failures
____________________________________________________________________________________

Year                       Q1          Q2           Q3            Q4           Total
____________________________________________________________________________________

1988......    |            11           6            12             7             36
1989......    |             5           7             5             5             22
1990......    |             3           5             6             3             17
1991......    |             2           2             3             1              8
1992......    |             1           1             1             4              7
1993......    |             1           2             2             0              5
1994......    |             0           0             0             0              0
1995......    |             0           0             0             0              0
1996......    |             0           2             0             0              2
1997......    |             0           0             0             1              1
1998......    |             0           0             1             0              1
1999......    |             0           1             0             0              1
2000......    |             0           0             0             0              0
2001......    |             0           0             0             0              0
2002......    |             1           0             0             1              2
2003......    |             0           1             0             0              1
2004......    |             0           1             0             0              1
2005......    |             0           0             0             0              0
2006......    |             0           0             0             0              0
2007......    |             0           0             0             0              0
2008......    |             1           0             0             2              3
2009......    |             2           3          n.a.          n.a.           n.a.
____________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Data exclude banks assisted to prevent failure.  Industrial banks and
mutual savings banks also are excluded.  Agricultural banks are defined in the
introduction to section B.
   n.a. Not available.

29
Exhibit
      32.1





**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.** § **1350)**




The
      undersigned, the chief executive officer of Span-America Medical Systems, Inc.
      (the “Company”), certifies that to the best of his knowledge: (1) the Annual
      Report on Form 10-K for the period ended October 1, 2005 (the “Annual Report”),
      which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and (2) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in
      all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.





The
      foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and no person shall be
      entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any other purpose. The
      undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing
      certification except as required by law.






Date: December
                29, 2005
              By:
              /s/ James
                D.
                FergusonJames
                D. FergusonPresident
                and
                Chief Executive Officer





62








**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.** § **1350)**




The
      undersigned, the chief financial officer of Span-America Medical Systems, Inc.
      (the “Company”), certifies that to the best of his knowledge: (1) the Annual
      Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 1, 2005 (the “Annual Report”),
      which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and (2) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in
      all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.





The
      foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and no person shall be
      entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any other purpose. The
      undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing
      certification except as required by law.


Date: December
                  29, 2005
                By:
                /s/ Richard
                  C. CogginsRichard
                  C. CogginsChief Financial
                  Officer
    63
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 11Federal Reserve Bank of: DallasFilings received during the week ending June 13, 2020FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 201 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 201

  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
  reduce funding if States do not enact legislation that requires the 
                    death penalty in certain cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

 Mr. Sweeney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 
  reduce funding if States do not enact legislation that requires the 
                    death penalty in certain cases.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Correctional Officer Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. GRANT REDUCTION FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

    Section 506 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g)(1) In order not to reduce the funds available under this 
subpart by 25 percent (for redistribution to other participating 
States), a State shall, on the first day of each fiscal year succeeding 
the first fiscal year beginning 2 years after the date of the enactment 
of the Correctional Officer Protection Act, have in effect throughout 
the State a law which requires whoever, being incarcerated pursuant to 
a conviction for crime, kills an individual who is a State or local 
correctional officer--
            ``(A) while such individual is engaged in carrying out 
        official duties as such officer;
            ``(B) because of the nature of the official duties of such 
        officer; or
            ``(C) because of such individual's being such an officer;
shall be subject to the penalty of death, if the killing is a first 
degree murder, and subject to the penalties provided in sections 1111 
and 1112 of title 18, United States Code, in any other case.
    ``(2) As used in this subsection--
            ``(A) the term `State or local correctional officer' means 
        any person who is a State or local officer or employee, as such 
        term is defined in section 1501 of title 5, United States Code, 
        and who in the course of official duty performs corrections-
        related or law enforcement functions; and
            ``(B) the term `State or local government' includes the 
        District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any 
        other territory or possession of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### BOOZE v. KOLB et al.

No. 2415.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 8, 1942.

LeDoux R. Provosty, of Alexandria, for appellants.

J. Y. Fontenot, Jr., of Shreveport, for appellee.

OTT, Judge.

The above plaintiff claims damages in the sum of $600 for injuries, consisting of the fracture of two ribs, lacerations of his forehead, general body bruises, shock, pain and suffering, sustained in the accident between the Joseph Cook car and the car of defendant Kolb. The trial judge awarded this plaintiff $450.

The above plaintiff received a laceration on his forehead and the fracture of two ribs. He was given first aid treatment on the night of the accident and saw his doctor the next day, and this doctor, without an X-day, decided that he had two fractured ribs. Plaintiff was not confined to bed, but he testified that he stayed in the house about three weeks, with some pain and inconvenience. He has fully recovered. We think an award of $300 would be sufficient in this case.

For the reasons herein assigned, together with the reasons assigned in the case of Antoine J. Ashey, for the benefit of his minor daughter, Asine Ashey, v. W. E. Kolb et al., 9 So.2d 865, this day decided, it is ordered that the judgment appealed from be amended by reducing the award from $450 to the sum of $300, and as thus amended, the judgment is affirmed; ap-pellee to pay the cost of the appeal, and appellants to pay all other costs.
#### Yvonne Hayes, Appellant, v Nachelle Wilson et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 567]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated August 25, 2004, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Nachelle Wilson which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and (2) an order of the same court dated January 5, 2005, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Claude C. Ramsey III which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7).

*587Ordered that the order dated August 25, 2004, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 5, 2005, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, that branch of the motion of the defendant Claude C. Ramsey III which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him is denied, and the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against that defendant; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff payable by the defendant Claude C. Ramsey III.

On a motion to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and accord the plaintiff all favorable inferences which may be drawn therefrom *(see Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; *Guggenheimer v Ginzburg,*43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]). If the plaintiff can succeed upon any reasonable view of the allegations, the cause of action may not be dismissed *(see Board of Educ. of City School Dist. of City of New Rochelle v County of Westchester,*282 AD2d 561, 562 [2001]). Under this standard, the plaintiffs complaint failed to sufficiently plead a cause of action against the defendant Nachelle Wilson. Accordingly, that branch of Wilson’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) was properly granted *(see*General Obligations Law § 5-703 [2]; *Sabetfard v Smith,*306 AD2d 265 [2003]; *Collymore v Secretary of Hous. & Urban Dev.,*22 AD3d 703 [2005]).

However, the complaint sufficiently pleaded a cause of action to recover deimages for legal malpractice against the defendant Claude C. Ramsey III. Accordingly, that branch of Reimsey’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) should have been denied.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Co vello, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert Benjamin, et al.

v. Case No. 08-cv-422-SM

Steven James Development, LLC, et al.

ORDER STRIKING DOCUMENT S IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 5.2

DOCUMENTS/FILER: #118 - Notice of Pro Se Appearance, filed by Vatche Manoukian on behalf of 

 Riley, More & More Enterprises, LLC;

 #119, Notice of Pro Se Appearance, filed by Vatche Manoukian on behalf of 

 176 Webster Street, LLC;

 #120, Notice of Pro Se Appearance, filed by Vatche Manoukian on behalf of

 New England All Star Consulting, LLC, and

 #121, Notice of Pro Se Appearance, filed by Vatche Manoukian on behalf 

 Mile High Real Estate, LLC.

DATE FILED: March 18, 2010

The documents above fail to comply with: 

LR 83.6(c) Corporation or unincorporated association may not appear in any action

or proceeding pro se.

It is herewith ordered that all pro se appearances filed by Defendant Manoukian on behalf of the

above-listed corporations are hereby stricken. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, legal

counsel authorized to practice in this court shall file an appearance on behalf of the corporations or be

referred to the clerk for entry of default as to those corporations pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). 

SO ORDERED.

April 1, 2010 

/s/ James R. Muirhead

_______________________________________

James R. Muirhead

Magistrate Judge

cc: All Counsel of Record

Vatche Manoukian, pro se 

Linda Haytayan, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00422-SM Document 124 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 1
1 “[#87]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02286-REB-CBS

CROSSROADS COMMERCIAL CENTER, LTD., LLP,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAROLD B. KRAFT, d/b/a EXOTIC MOTORS,

Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.

VAL SIMONE, and

RALPH G. CURRIER,

Third-Party Defendants.

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Stipulated Motion To Dismiss All Claims

Between Plaintiff Crossroads Commercial Center, Ltd, LLLP, Defendant Garold B.

Kraft and Third-Party Defendant Randolph G. Currier [#87]1 filed November 30,

2012. After reviewing the motion and the record, I conclude that the motion should be

granted; that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Garold B.Kraft, d/b/a Exotic Motors

should be dismissed with prejudice; that Kraft’s counterclaims against plaintiff

Crossroads should be dismissed with prejudice; and that third-party plaintiff Kraft’s

claims against third-party defendant Currier should be dismissed with prejudice.

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 89 Filed 12/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That Stipulated Motion To Dismiss All Claims Between Plaintiff

Crossroads Commercial Center, Ltd, LLLP, Defendant Garold B. Kraft and ThirdParty Defendant Randolph G. Currier [#87] filed November 30, 2012, is GRANTED;

2. That the claims of plaintiff Crossroads Commercial Center, Ltd., LLLP against

defendant Garold B.Kraft, d/b/a Exotic Motors are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with

each of the affected parties to pay their or its own attorney fees and costs; 

3. That the counterclaims of defendant Garold B. Kraft’s d/b/a Exotic Motors

against plaintiff Crossroads Commercial Center, Ltd., LLLP are DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE with each of the affected parties to pay their or its own attorney fees and

costs; 

4. That the claims of third-party plaintiff Garold B. Kraft’s d/b/a Exotic Motors

against third-party defendant Randolph G. Currier are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

with each of the affected parties to pay its own attorney fees and costs; and

5. That plaintiff Crossroads Commercial Center, Ltd., LLLP, Garold B.Kraft, d/b/a

Exotic Motors, and Randolph G. Currier are DROPPED as named parties to this action,

and the case caption is amended accordingly.

Dated December 4, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02286-REB-CBS Document 89 Filed 12/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
EX-4.2





 Exhibit 4.2 

AMENDMENT No. 2 TO ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT 

This AMENDMENT No. 2 TO ADMINSTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), dated as of August 29, 2019 is made by
and between Navios Maritime Acquisition Corporation, a Marshall Islands corporation (“NMAC”) and Navios Tankers Management Inc., a Marshall Islands corporation (“NTM”, and together with NMAC, the
“Parties”) and amends the Management Agreement (the “Agreement”) entered into between the Parties on May 28, 2010 as amended, assigned or novated from time-to-time. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given them in the Agreement. 

W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Parties hereby agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	 In Section 1, Definitions, add the following definition: 



“Termination Fee” means the Cost and Expenses for the full calendar year preceding the termination date; 

 

	 	2.	 Section 10 paragraph 1 of the Agreement shall be amended and restated as follows: 



“Term And Termination. This Agreement shall have a term until January 1, 2025 and shall be automatically
renewed for a period of other five (5) years, unless terminated by either party hereto on not less than one hundred and twenty (120) days’ notice if:” 
  

	 	3.	 At the end of the second last paragraph of Section 10, the following paragraph shall be inserted:



 If the Agreement is terminated on or before December 31, 2024, the Termination Fee is immediately due and payable
to NTM. 
  

	 	4.	 Full Force and Effect. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions in the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 


  

	 	5.	 Effect. Unless the context otherwise requires, the Agreement, as amended, and this Amendment shall be
read together and shall have effect as if the provisions of the Agreement, as amended, and this Amendment were contained in one agreement. After the effective date of this Amendment, all references in the Agreement to “this Agreement,”
“hereto,” “hereof,” “hereunder” or words of like import referring to the Agreement shall mean the Agreement, as amended, as further modified by this Amendment. 



 

	 	6.	 Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in separate counterparts, all of which taken together shall
constitute a single instrument. 


 [Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signature page to follow.] 












 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment effective as of the day
and year first above written. 
  

	
	NAVIOS MARITIME ACQUISITION CORPORATION
	
	 /s/ Leonidas Korres

	By: Leonidas Korres
	Title: Chief Financial Officer

  

	
	NAVIOS TANKERS MANAGEMENT INC.
	
	 /s/ Efstratios Desypris

	By: Efstratios Desypris 
	Title: President/Director

 [Signature Page - Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement]