alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Eldor Contracting Corp., Respondent-Appellant, v County of Nassau, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent. Centrum Construction Co., Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants-Respondents. (And Another Third-Party Action.)

[744 NYS2d 896]

In an action to recover damages for breach of a construction contract, the defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ort, J.), entered January 22, 2001, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the third-party defendants separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on its first cause of action, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff, payable by the appellants-respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

*436The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of all three motions which were for summary judgment on the plaintiffs second cause of action to recover damages for delay incurred during the performance of a construction contract. There is a question of fact regarding whether the County of Nassau (hereinafter the County) hindered the plaintiff from complying with the five-day notice of claim requirement in Paragraph XLIII of the parties’ contract *(see Tug Hill Constr. v County of Broome,*270 AD2d 755). A County official announced at a progress meeting in September 1992 that delay claims would not be addressed until after the completion of the project. A rational trier of fact might infer that this had been the County’s position throughout the project, which had been plagued by delays almost from its inception, and that such a stance on the part of the County would hinder the plaintiff contractor from filing a notice of claim within five days of incurring delay-induced damages.

However, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its first cause of action. The County admitted in its verified answer that it owed the total contract amount claimed by the plaintiff, and the County’s denials that post-action payments it made were toward this amount were disproved by the plaintiff. The third-party defendants, in effect, concede that this money is owed to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to its outstanding contract balance in the sum of $14,341.71, plus interest from January 31, 1994, when the County declared the project completed.

The remaining contentions raised on the appeals and cross appeal are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Smith and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,137
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  264,287
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,541
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           2,570
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 233,128
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        143,952
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,125
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   233,128
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,814
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,194
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,002
<INCOME-TAX>                                       881
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,121
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,121
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Giga-tronics Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending March 26, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven D. Lance, Vice President of Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Date: 07/21/2016 |  |                                     | 
|---------------- |  | ----------------------------------- | 
|                 |  |                                     | 
|                 |  | /s/  STEVEN D. LANCE                | 
|                 |  | Steven D. Lance                     | 
|                 |  | Vice President of Finance,          | 
|                 |  | Chief Financial Officer & Secretary |
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of US Unwired Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 (the Report), I, Jerry E. Vaughn, Chief Financial 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, 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 fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jerry E. Vaughn                                  
|Jerry E. Vaughn Chief Financial Officer July 25, 2005
#### Armand Di Stefano, Appellant, *v.*Edmond Di Stefano, as Executrix of Filippo Di Stefano, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 29, 1956.

*684*John Finn*and *Samuel Schwartz*for appellant.

No appearance for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The proposed amendment of the title in the summons, complaint, and other pleadings was merely to change the designation of the defendant Di Stefano from his representative capacity as executor to his individual capacity. Such an amendment does not bring in a new or different party and is, therefore, permissible notwithstanding that at the time of the amendment the period of limitation has already run. *(Boyd*v. *United States Mtge. & Trust Co.,*187 N. Y. 262; cf. *Van der Stegen*v. *Neuss, Hesslein & Co.,*270 N. Y. 55.) It does not appear that the allowance of the amendment will prejudice the defendant Di Stefano. It was, therefore, error to deny leave to make the amendment.

The orders should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion returnable below on April 10, 1956 granted.

Hoestadter, Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Orders reversed, etc.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1286 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1286

To authorize the Coquille Indian Tribe of the State of Oregon to convey 
             land and interests in land owned by the Tribe.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 3, 2007

   Mr. Smith introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
              referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Coquille Indian Tribe of the State of Oregon to convey 
             land and interests in land owned by the Tribe.

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

SECTION 1. LAND AND INTERESTS OF COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE, OREGON.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), 
notwithstanding any other provision of law (including regulations), the 
Coquille Indian Tribe of the State of Oregon (including any agent or 
instrumentality of the Tribe) (referred to in this section as the 
``Tribe''), may transfer, lease, encumber, or otherwise convey, without 
further authorization or approval, any land (including fee simple land) 
or interest in land owned by the Tribe.
    (b) Nonapplicability to Certain Conveyances.--Subsection (a) shall 
not apply with respect to any transfer, encumbrance, lease, or other 
conveyance of any land or interest in land of the Tribe that occurred 
before January 1, 2007.
    (c) Effect of Section.--Nothing in this section invalidates or 
otherwise alters or affects any restriction on alienation applicable to 
land held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe or 
any member of the Tribe.
                                 <all>
```
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1188 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to enhance 

the ability to produce fruits and vegetables on covered commodity base acres. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 23, 2007 

Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. BAYH, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. 

LEVIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 

of 2002 to enhance the ability to produce fruits and 

vegetables on covered commodity base acres. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Farming Flexibility 

5 Act of 2007’’. 

2 

•S 1188 IS

1 SEC. 2. PRODUCTION OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FOR 

2 PROCESSING ON COVERED COMMODITY BASE 

3 ACRES. 

4 Section 1101 of the Farm Security and Rural Invest5 ment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 7911) is amended by adding 

6 at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(i) PRODUCTION OF FRUITS OR VEGETABLES FOR

8 PROCESSING.— 

9 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraphs (2) 

10 and (3), the producers on a farm, with the consent 

11 of the owner of and any other producers on the 

12 farm, may reduce the base acres for a covered com13 modity for the farm if the reduced acres are used for 

14 the planting and production of fruits or vegetables 

15 for processing. 

16 ‘‘(2) REVERSION TO BASE ACRES FOR COVERED

17 COMMODITY.—Any reduced acres of a farm devoted 

18 to the planting and production of fruits or vegeta19 bles during a crop year under paragraph (1) shall be 

20 included in base acres for the covered commodity for 

21 the subsequent crop year, unless the producers on 

22 the farm make the election described in paragraph 

23 (1) for the subsequent crop year. 

24 ‘‘(3) RECALCULATION OF BASE ACRES.— 

25 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara26 graph (B), if the Secretary recalculates base 

3 

•S 1188 IS

1 acres for a farm, the planting and production of 

2 fruits or vegetables for processing under para3 graph (1) shall be considered to be the same as 

4 the planting, prevented planting, or production 

5 of the covered commodity. 

6 ‘‘(B) AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this sub7 section provides authority for the Secretary to 

8 recalculate base acres for a farm.’’. 

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

927 COLE STREET, GOLDEN, COLORADO, and

2008 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER VIN # JTEES42A182076495;

Defendants.

ORDER TO UNSEAL

The Court has for consideration the government's Motion to Unseal Case wherein the government

asks this Court to unseal the above captioned mater and all documents filed therein. Upon consideration,

IT IS ORDERED that the government's Motion to Unseal Case is hereby granted. The Clerk of

Court is instructed to unseal this civil action and all documents filed therein. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 4th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/Craig B. Shaffer 

Craig B. Shaffer

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 19 filed 10/04/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERMAN SANCHEZ, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. GREG LEWIS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 12-16962 D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02134-KJM-CKD
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 12, 2014 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and CURIEL, District Judge.** Petitioner Herman Sanchez appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner challenges the 

# FILED
OCT 03 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Gonzalo P. Curiel, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.California Superior Court’s denial of hi s motion for discovery of a correctional officer’s personnel file for evidence of untruthfulness (“ Pitchess motion”) without first conducting an in camera review. This court does not directly review questions of state evidence law, Jammal v. Van de Kamp , 926 F.2d 918, 919 (9th Cir. 1991), and Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the state court’s adjudication of his claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). AFFIRMED
.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To Foothill Independent Bancorp:

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 8, 1999,
on the financial statements of Foothill Independent Bank Partners in Your Future
retirement plan as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, included as part of this Form
10-K into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration Number 33-57586).


                                              /s/ Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Company
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                  VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & COMPANY
                                                  Certified Public Accountants

April 21, 1999
Rancho Cucamonga, California
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02285-NYW

CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY, d/b/a DISABILITY LAW COLORADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

REGGIE BICHA, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of 

Human Services; and

RONALD B. HALE, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Colorado Mental Health 

Institute at Pueblo,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REOPEN ACTION

FOR ENFORCEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

______________________________________________________________________________

Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang

This matter is before the court on the Motion to Reopen Action for Enforcement of 

Settlement Agreement [#53, filed on November 18, 2015] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the 

Order of Reference for all purposes dated February 21, 2012 [#44], and the Reassignment dated 

November 19, 2015 [#58]. The court has reviewed the Parties’ briefing [#57, #59], the 

Settlement Agreement [#53-1], the entire case file including the court’s Order of Dismissal 

[#52], and the applicable case law. There is no dispute between the Parties that this court retains 

jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement. [#57 at 7]. Nevertheless, Defendants contend 

that this court should decline to re-open the case because they are not in violation of the 

Settlement Agreement or it should only be re-opened for the purposes of formal mediation. 

[#57]. Respectfully, Defendants’ position puts the cart before the horse.

Case 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 62 Filed 12/18/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
The only question that is ripe before the court on the Motion to Reopen is whether this 

case should be re-opened to consider Plaintiff’s allegation that the Settlement Agreement has 

been breached. In light of Defendants’ concession that errors in reporting did, in fact, occur 

repeatedly [#57 at 11], and Plaintiff’s articulated concern regarding mentally-ill detainees, this 

court finds that it is appropriate for this case to the re-opened. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED

that:

(1) The Motion to Reopen Action for Enforcement of Settlement Agreement [#53] is 

GRANTED, insofar as it seeks to reopen the case to allow the court to consider whether the 

Settlement Agreement has been breached and whether to order enforcement; and 

(2) This matter is set for a Status Conference on December 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. to 

discuss Plaintiff’s request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. On or before December 27, 

2015, the Parties will meet and confer about and file a Joint Status Report addressing Plaintiff’s 

requested discovery and a proposed scope and procedure for hearing.

DATED: December 18, 2015 BY THE COURT:

s/ Nina Y. Wang

Nina Y. Wang

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02285-NYW Document 62 Filed 12/18/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
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.                  

###### Federal Trade Commission

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra M. Peay, Contact Representative or Renee Hallman, Contact Representative, Federal Trade Commission, Premerger Notification Office, Bureau of Competition, Room H-303, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3100.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

 [FR Doc. E8-23330 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Exhibit 23.2


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

To Foothill Independent Bancorp:

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 8, 1999,
on the financial statements of Foothill Independent Bank Partners in Your Future
retirement plan as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, included as part of this Form
10-K into the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration Number 33-57586).



                                              /s/ Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Company
                                              ----------------------------------
                                                  VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & COMPANY
                                                  Certified Public Accountants


March 23, 1999
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority        Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

# Board Actions

## Actions taken during the week ending February 26, 2022

----

Bank Holding Companies            Home BancShares, Inc., Conway, Arkansas -- to merge with Happy Bancshares, Inc., and thereby acquire Happy State Bank, both of  Happy, Texas, and for Centennial Bank, Conway, Arkansas, to merge with Happy State Bank and to establish and operate branches at the locations of the main office and branches of Happy State Bank.            -Approved, February 22, 2022            Monetary and Financial Policy            Monetary Policy Report -- semiannual report to Congress.            -Published, February 25, 2022            Enforcement            National Bank of Pakistan (NBP), Karachi, Pakistan, and NBP New York Branch, New York, New York -- consent cease-and-desist order and assessment of a civil money penalty for deficiencies in Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money-laundering compliance.            -Approved, February 18, 2022            (A/C)          
Release dates |     Full version (300 KB PDF)Board Actions |     Actions under delegated authority    Applications and reports received:
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1273 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow permanent lookthrough treatment of payments between related foreign corporations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2007 

Mr. KYL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow permanent look-through treatment of payments between related foreign corporations. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT LOOK-THROUGH TREATMENT OF 

4 PAYMENTS BETWEEN RELATED CONTROLLED 

5 FOREIGN CORPORATIONS UNDER THE FOR6 EIGN PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY RULES. 

7 Section 954(c)(6)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code 

8 of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘and before January 1, 

9 2009,’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS