alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### A.S.A.P. Funding Corp., Respondent, v John Fariello et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Summary judgment was improperly granted. There is a question of fact whether this loan, although in corporate form, was made to an individual *(see, Schneider v Phelps,*41 NY2d 238, 241-242; *Jenkins v Moyse,*254 NY 319, 324; *Kaye v Keret,*89 AD2d 885, 886; *Shapiro v Weissman,*7 AD2d 752, 753). Moreover, even if this were a loan to a corporation, there is a question of fact whether this transaction violated the criminal usury statute (Penal Law § 190.40). In addition to the interest rate of 24% called for in the note, the amount of $11,250, which plaintiff’s president characterized as a "lender’s fee”, was charged and paid out of the proceeds of the loan. Plaintiff offered no proof concerning the nature of that fee. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Nassau County, Roncallo, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
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 Mortgage  Assistance Center  Corporation
(the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Ronald E.  Johnson,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  hereby  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Company.







     Date:  May 20, 2008                  By: /s/ Ronald E. Johnson
                                              ----------------------------------
                                          Ronald E. Johnson
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 23.1 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

To the Board of Directors 

Heritage Bankshares, Inc. 

We consent to the incorporation by reference inregistration statements No. 333-112214 on Form S-8 of Heritage Bankshares, Inc. of our report dated September 8, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Heritage Bankshares, Inc. and subsidiaries as ofDecember 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which appears in this annual report on Form 10-KSB. 

 

Norfolk, Virginia 

March 23, 2007 

 

78
**Exhibit4.10**

**PROMISSORYNOTE EXTENSION**

Principal Amount:                $1,000,000                                                              OriginalNote Date:  April 1, 2004

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, PHOTONIC PRODUCTS GROUP, INC., aNew Jersey corporation (hereinafter called “Issuer”), hereby promises to pay tothe order of CLAREX, Ltd. and its successors and assigns (hereinafter calledthe “Holder”), at such address as the Holder may designate in writing toIssuer, the principal sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) plus all accruedinterest owing hereunder in lawful money of the United States of America on orbefore the Maturity Date (as defined below). For purposes of this Note, “Maturity Date” shall be extended from March31, 2007 to March 31, 2008.

At the option of CLAREX, Ltd., the note and allaccrued interest owing at the time of maturity may be repaid in lawful money ofthe United States of America and/or a combination of shares of the Common Stockof Photonic Products Group, Inc. as proscribed under the terms of the Note.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Issuer has caused this NoteExtension to be signed in its name by its duly authorized officer and itscorporate seal to be affixed hereto.
|        | PHOTONIC PRODUCTS GROUP, INC. |                    |
|--------|-------------------------------|-------------------------|
|   |                          |
|   |                          |
|   | By:                           | /s/William J.  Foote    |   |
|   |                          |                    |
|   |                          | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                          |                    |
|   | Date:                         | March 26, 2007          |
|        |                               |                         |  |  |

 

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 21
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


                                         JURISDICTION OF      VOTING STOCK OWNED
         NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                FORMATION            BY THE COMPANY

El Chico Realty Corporation                  Texas                   100%
Concepts, Inc.                               Texas                   100%
El Chico Bebidas Company                     Texas                    23%
El Chico Restaurants of Louisiana, Inc.      Delaware                100%
El Chico Corporation of Oklahoma, Inc.       Oklahoma                100%
El Chico Restaurant No. 20, Inc.             Delaware                100%
Southwest Cafes of Tennessee, Inc.           Tennessee               100%
El Chico Corporation                         Georgia                 100%
El Chico Corporation of Alabama              Alabama                 100%
El Chico Corporation of Florida              Florida                 100%
Pronto Design & Supply, Inc.                 Texas                   100%
Nuevo Ventures, Inc.                         Texas                   100%
El Chico Restaurants of Kentucky, Inc.       Kentucky                100%
El Chico Restaurants of Ohio, Inc.           Ohio                    100%
El Chico Restaurants of Indiana, Inc.        Indiana                 100%
El Chico Restaurants of Illinois, Inc.       Illinois                100%
El Chico Service Company                     Delaware                100%
ECRT, Inc.                                   Delaware                100%

NOTE:      Texas El Chico Restaurants, L.P. is a Limited Partnership between two
           wholly owned subsidiaries - El Chico Service Company and ECRT, Inc.


         SUBSIDIARIES OF CONCEPTS, INC.

                                              JURISDICTION OF VOTING STOCK OWNED
 NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                              FORMATION     BY CONCEPTS, INC.
Concepts Beverages of Oklahoma City, Inc.        Oklahoma           100%
Concepts Beverages of South Meridian, Inc.       Oklahoma           100%

         SUBSIDIARIES OF EL CHICO CORPORATION OF OKLAHOMA, INC.

                                                           VOTING STOCK OWNED BY
                                            URISDICTION  OF EL CHICO CORPORATION
         NAME OF SUBSIDIARY               INCORPORATION     OF OKLAHOMA, INC.

Bebidas Company of Tulsa, Inc.                  Oklahoma               100%
Bebidas Company of Oklahoma City, Inc.          Oklahoma               100%
Bebidas Company of Midwest City, Inc.           Oklahoma               100%
Bebidas Company of Tulsa No. 65, Inc.           Oklahoma               100%
Bebidas Company of Oklahoma City No. 36, Inc.   Oklahoma               100%
Bebidas Company of Oklahoma City No. 101, Inc.  Oklahoma               100%
Bebidas Company of Broken Arrow, Inc.           Oklahoma               100%
Bebidas Company of Oklahoma City No. 37, Inc.   Oklahoma               100%
Bebidas Company of Tulsa No. 23, Inc.           Oklahoma               100%
Bebidas Company of Edmond, Inc.                 Oklahoma               100%
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE ORIGINAL HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY OF GEORGIA, INC.,

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 30, 2011.

Before the Court is an Unopposed Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 24(a)(1) filed by Wendy Cabrera [filed November 29, 2011; docket #7]. Ms. Cabrera claims to

have an unconditional right to intervene in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (“The

person or persons aggrieved shall have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the

Commission ....”). Having no objection to the motion and finding that Plaintiff’s motion is timely

filed, the Court grants Ms. Cabrera’s motion to intervene as a plaintiff in this action. The Clerk of

the Court is directed to file the Intervenor Complaint and Jury Trial Demand found at docket #7-1,

and to amend the case caption accordingly.

Case 1:11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH Document 9 Filed 11/30/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David REYNA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-1490

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 28, 1977.

Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Charles S. Szekely, Jr., Asst. Federal Public Defender, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.

Edward B. McDonough, Jr., U. S. Atty., George A. Kelt, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty. Houston, Tex., Robert A. Berg, Asst. U. S. Atty., Corpus Christi, Tex., James R. Gough, Asst. U. S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; *see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted by a jury of possession of 99 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress the contraband seized at the time of his arrest. It was alleged that the Border Patrol agent did not have probable cause to search appellant’s car.

The district court found that probable cause to search was established in this case by the discernible odor of air-freshener in the car, the nervousness of the passenger, and the unbelievable story told by the driver about the missing trunk key. *See United States v. Medina,*5 Cir., 1976, 543 F.2d 553. These factors coupled with the agent’s ten years of experience in the field were *104more than sufficient to establish probable cause.

Appellant’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, Edward Kirnbauer, Acting Chief Financial Officer of Procom Technology, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Procom Technology, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement 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 periods covered by this quarterly report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible 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 tobe 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 quarterlyreport is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periods covered by thisquarterly report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 ofthe 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 arereasonably 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’sinternal control over financial reporting.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Natrol, Inc. (the “Company”) for the periodended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on thedate listed below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asadopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  thereport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

This Certification shallnot be deemed part of the report or “filed” for any purpose whatsoever, norshall it be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 
| Date: November 14, 2007 |                                              |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                    | /s/ Dennis R. Jolicoeur                           |
|                    | Dennis R. Jolicoeur                               |
|                    | Chief Financial  Officer, Treasurer and Executive |
|                    | Vice President  (Principal Financial Officer)     |

 

----
(August 23, 1990)

#### Michael Piecyk, Respondent, v Otis Elevator Company, Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff, et al., Third-Party Defendant. dant.

Order of Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered June 12, 1989, which denied defendant’s motion, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant failed to establish entitlement to summary judg*817merit, as a matter of law, in this personal injury action. Plaintiff, an employee of third-party defendant, The Mount Sinai Hospital, was dispatched by the hospital to repair an elevator, which was in the normal course of his job duties. During the course of said repairs, plaintiff was injured.

Defendant was contractually obligated to maintain the elevators at the hospital. Plaintiff alleged that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Defendant’s reliance upon *Mullin v Genesee County Elec. Light, Power & Gas Co.*(202 NY 275) and *Kowalsky v Conreco Co.*(264 NY 125) is misplaced. Those cases provide, as an exception to the general rule that an employer is obligated to provide an employee with a safe place to work, that an employee cannot recover for injuries received while doing an act to *eliminate*a dangerous condition which creates a risk of injury. *(Kowalsky v Conreco Co., supra,*at 128; *Mullin v Genesee County Elec. Light, Power & Gas Co., supra,*at 279.) Those cases and their progeny do not apply to the instant facts, since plaintiff was not dispatched as an employee of defendant to repair the defective elevator. He did so on behalf of his employer, the hospital. Thus, the "safe place to work” common-law rule, codified to an extent in Labor Law § 200, does serve as a bar to the instant action. *(Gasper v Ford Motor Co.,*13 NY2d 104.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-25-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUN-28-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-252000
<CASH>                                         484
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 5491
<ALLOWANCES>                                  1036
<INVENTORY>                                   2910
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             10568
<PP&E>                                        1650
<DEPRECIATION>                                4872
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               17691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         5832
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       150
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                     339
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 17691
<SALES>                                      60382
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             66304
<CGS>                                        55255
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                55255
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              2003
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               225
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               4389
<INCOME-TAX>                                  1505
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           2884
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                  2884
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .24















</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

DAVID LEE NELSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 18-cv-2934 (KBJ)

)

DAVID BERNHARDT, Acting 

Secretary, Department of the Interior,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On April 3, 2019, the defendant in this matter filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff

David Lee Nelson’s complaint. (See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 8.) On April 5, 

2019, the Court advised Nelson of his obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and the local rules of this Court to respond to the motion, and specifically 

warned Nelson that, if he did not respond to the motion by May 6, 2019, the Court may 

treat the motion as conceded. (See Order, ECF No. 9.) Nelson failed to respond timely 

to the motion. Accordingly, on May 9, 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion 

(see Mem. Op., ECF No. 11) and Order (see Order, ECF No. 10) granting Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss as conceded.

On June 5, 2019, Nelson filed a Motion for Relief from Judgment, citing 

difficulty receiving this Court’s orders by mail. (See Pl.’s Mot. for Relief, ECF No. 12, 

at 1.) The Court granted Nelson’s motion, reopened the case, and ordered Nelson to 

respond to Defendant’s motion on or before July 12, 2019. (See Min. Order of June 11, 

2019.) On June 25, 2019, Nelson filed a Motion to have the Court’s April order resent 
(see Pl.’s Mot. to Have Apr. 15, 2019 Order Resent, ECF No. 13), which the Court 

granted with instructions to the Clerk to mail a copy of its April 5, 2019 Order to 

Nelson as requested. (See Min. Order of June 26, 2019 (instructing the Clerk to mail a 

copy of ECF No. 9 to Nelson).) 1 

It is now 17 days after the July 12, 2019 deadline to respond to Defendant’s 

motion to dismiss (see Min. Order of June 11, 2019), and Nelson has neither filed an 

opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, nor has he requested more time to do so. 

Therefore, the Court will GRANT defendant’s motion as conceded and will DISMISS

this action without prejudice.

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: July 29, 2019 Ketanji Brown Jackson

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

United States District Judge

 1 Nelson’s motion requested the “April 15, 2019 Order.” (See ECF No. 13.) However, Nelson’s motion appeared to 

reference the only Order issued by this Court in April, which was filed on April 5, 2019. (See ECF No. 9.)
EXHIBIT 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Incentra Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Paul
McKnight, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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: August 14, 2006                             By: /s/ Paul McKnight
                                                      -----------------
                                                      Paul McKnight
                                                      Chief Financial Officer

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

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 6, 2021

b0628

Order 

Clerk

July 6, 2021

161544

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 161544

COA: 353104

Oakland CC: 10-232104-FC

ANTONIO LIGGINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 20, 2020 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).