alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rod Perrino, Appellant, v MTS Funding, Inc., Respondent.

[788 NYS2d 443]

Carpinello, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered October 31, 2003 in Ulster County, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment.

This matter arises out of a failed business arrangement between plaintiff and Michael Gangadeen whereby the latter, in essence, was to buy a piece of real property “as a strawman” for plaintiff, hold it for a year and then sell it to him. Plaintiff, as a contract vendee, now seeks specific performance of that contract of sale. Plaintiff appeals from an order of Supreme Court which granted defendant’s application for dismissal of his complaint and denied his cross motion for summary judgment. Our review of the record compels affirmance.

Plaintiffs complaint seeks enforcement of a purported written contract of sale dated December 16, 2001. The “contract,” however, is not signed by plaintiff but is signed by Gangadeen in his *individual*capacity. While admittedly this document does recite that title to the subject premises would be held in defendant’s name, and Gangadeen is described as the president and sole shareholder of defendant, defendant is neither a party to nor an obligor under the contract. Moreover, the only fully executed contract of sale in the record is a different document dated December 12, 2001, again between plaintiff and Gangadeen individually. This contract contains no reference of any kind to defendant.1

Defendant proffered a number of arguments in support of its application for dismissal, including plaintiffs failure to pay the deposit recited in the December 12, 2001 agreement, but we need concentrate on only one, namely, the complete absence of an agreement between plaintiff and defendant. The purported agreement of December 16, 2001, upon which plaintiff relies, *866does not recite that defendant is a party to the agreement. Further, it was not signed by defendant, as Gangadeen did not sign in his corporate capacity. Since defendant was “neither named in the contract as a party thereto nor did [it] sign as such” *(Salzman Sign Co. v Beck,*10 NY2d 63, 66 [1961]), the mere reference in the contract to defendant is insufficient to create any legal duty on defendant’s part in favor of plaintiff.2

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

1

. Notably Gangadeen is not a party to the action.

2

. To the extent that plaintiff argues on appeal that the absence of an agreement between plaintiff and defendant was not pleaded as an affirmative defense, we note that his own complaint alleged that the contract of sale, upon which he relies, was between him and Gangadeen.
# Audio Engineer Alexandria Perryman

"It’s almost as if I’m a musician and the fader is my instrument — and I’m playing the astronaut’s voices for NASA TV.” — Alexandria Perryman, Audio Engineer, Johnson Space Center

Read More

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/audio-engineer-alexandria-perryman-2/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTags- Black History Month
- Women's History Month
Size1041x694pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Oct 12, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Michelle Zajac								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
SIERRA NEVADA JOURNEYS

NASA Family STEM Nights

Holly Carter

6/14/23 - 6/13/25

With this project, Sierra Nevada Journeys expands their 

offerings to incorporate NASA activities and lessons 

into their Family STEM Nights, in which they assist 

schools with planning, outreach, and RSVPs for the 

evening event, then facilitate 5-10 hands-on STEM 

exploration stations plus a competitive main design 

challenge, a fun opportunity for the whole family to work 

together. Ten free NASA Family STEM Nights will be 

held at schools that otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford 

the program and NASA activities will continue to be part 

of the Family STEM Night rotation beyond the funding 

period.

List of Partners:

• Washoe County School District

Family STEM Night demonstration

Credits: Sierra Nevada Journeys

The material contained in this document is based upon 

work supported by a NASA grant or cooperative 

agreement award #80NSSC23K0798, under the Teams 

Engaging Affiliated Museums and Informal Institutions 

(TEAM II) activity of NASA’s Next Gen STEM Project.

Explore TEAM II Products 

https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/search/

www.nasa.gov
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1897

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide a clarification 

of congressional intent regarding the counting of residents in a nonprovider setting for purposes making payment for medical education under 

the medicare program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 20, 2003

Ms. SNOWE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

a clarification of congressional intent regarding the 

counting of residents in a nonprovider setting for purposes making payment for medical education under the 

medicare program.

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 ‘‘Medicare Education 

5 Payment Clarification Act of 2003’’. 
2

•S 1897 IS 

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT RE2 GARDING THE COUNTING OF RESIDENTS IN A 

3 NONPROVIDER SETTING. 

4 (a) D–GME.—Section 1886(h)(4)(E) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(4)(E)) is amended by 

6 adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘For pur7 poses of the preceding sentence time shall only be counted 

8 from the effective date of a written agreement between 

9 the hospital and the entity owning or operating a nonpro10 vider setting. The effective date of such written agreement 

11 shall be determined in accordance with generally accepted 

12 accounting principles. All, or substantially all, of the costs 

13 for the training program in that setting shall be defined 

14 as the residents’ stipends and benefits and other costs, if 

15 any, as determined by the parties.’’. 

16 (b) IME.—Section 1886(d)(5)(B)(iv) of the Social 

17 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)(iv)) is amended 

18 by adding at the end the following new sentence: ‘‘For 

19 purposes of the preceding sentence time shall only be 

20 counted from the effective date of a written agreement be21 tween the hospital and the entity owning or operating a 

22 nonprovider setting. The effective date of such written 

23 agreement shall be determined in accordance with gen24 erally accepted accounting principles. All, or substantially 

25 all, of the costs for the training program in that setting 
3

•S 1897 IS 

1 shall be defined as the residents’ stipends and benefits and 

2 other costs, if any, as determined by the parties.’’. 

3 (c) APPLICATION.—The amendments made by this 

4 section shall only apply with respect to approved medical 

5 residency training programs in the fields of allopathic and 

6 osteopathic medicine.

Æ
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000547

28-MAR-2018

08:03 AM
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2809]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 2-4 p.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Compliance Weekly Report--Commission Briefing

    The staff will brief the Commission on various compliance matters.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: February 2, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2809 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1196, -1197 TILLOTSON CORPORATION,

Appellant,

v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee, and CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., CARDINAL HEALTH 200, INC., and CARDINAL HEALTH MALAYSIA 211 SDN. BHD., Intervenors, and SMART GLOVE HOLDINGS, SDN. BHD., SMART GLOVE CORPORATION SDN. BHD., HENRY SCHEIN, INC.,

and HSI GLOVES, INC.,

Intervenors. On appeal from the United States International Trade Commission

in Investigation Nos. 337-TA-608 and 612.

ON MOTION Before MAYER, Circuit Judge. ORDER The International Trade Commission moves for a 30-day extension of time, until August 13, 2009, to file its brief. The Tillotson Corporation opposes. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT:The motion is granted. FOR THE COURT



### JUL 16 2009 /s/ Jan Horbalv Date Jan Horbaly Clerk cc: William D. Belanger, Esq. Paul M. Bartkowski, Esq. M U.S. IL . COURT OF APPEALS FOR THEFEDERAL CIRCUIT

s20 Paul F. Brinkman, Esq. Scott M. Daniels, Esq. JUL 16 2009 JAN HOKBat CLERK

2009-1196, -1197 2
<PAGE>
 
<TABLE>                                                        EXHIBIT 11      
<CAPTION>
                                 EQUIMED, INC.

             STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
 
                   (in thousands, except per share amounts)
 
 
             
 
                                            Three months
                                               ended
                                              March 31,
                                            1996     1997
                                          ----------------
<S>                                       <C>        <C> 
Primary:
 
          Weighted average common          25,045     28,035
           shares outstanding
 
          Net effect of dillutive stock
           options and warrants-
           based on the treasury
           stock method using
           average market price               282         --
                                          ---------  --------
          Weighted average common share
           and equivalent outstanding      25,327     28,035
                                          ---------  --------
 
          Net Income (loss)                   381      2,802
                                          ---------  -------- 
          Net income per share               0.02       0.10
                                          ---------  --------
 
 
Fully Diluted:
 
          Weighted average common  
           shares outstanding              25,045     28,035
 
          Net effect of dillutive stock
           options and warrants-
           based on the treasury
           stock method using
           average market price               282         --
                                          ---------  --------
          Weighted average common share
           and equivalent outstanding      25,327     28,035
                                          ---------  --------
 
          Net Income (loss)                   381      2,802
                                          ---------  --------
 
          Net income per share               0.02       0.10
                                          ---------  --------
 
 
 
 
</TABLE>
#### Mona Demo, Appellant, v James Badie et al., Respondents.

[787 NYS2d 874]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, *437J.), entered October 16, 2003, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and order, same court and Justice, entered May 10, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for reargument and adhered to the initial determination, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff fails to make out a claim for legal malpractice. Defendants’ conduct was not a “but for” cause of the claimed losses *(Davis v Klein,*88 NY2d 1008 [1996]). Plaintiff failed to provide a nonconclusory reason—i.e., other than her subjective dissatisfaction with its terms—for failing to abide by the agreement with her sister, which would have removed the legal impediment to her conveyance of the jointly held property. Viewing the matter in this light, it is unnecessary for us to reach the other grounds advanced for affirmance. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Marlow and Nardelli, JJ.
#### Sabrija RADONCIC, United States ex rel., v. Charles ZEMSKI, Acting District Director Immigration and Naturalization Service, Appellant.

No. 01-1074.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued Sept. 20, 2001.

Decided Jan. 4, 2002.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court May 5, 2003.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 28, 2003.

Decided Aug. 25, 2003.

James J. Orlow, Orlow & Orlow, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee.

Stephen J. Britt, Philadelphia, PA, David J. Kline, Hugh G. Mullane, Washington, DC, for Appellant.

Before SLOVITER, NYGAARD and MCKEE, Circuit Judges.

*OPINION OF THE COURT*

SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.

This court filed a not precedential opinion in the above case on January 4, 2002 affirming the decision of the District Court granting Sabrija Radoncic’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordering that he be released from custody unless the Gov-*159eminent commenced an individualized examination -within thirty days to determine if detention was necessary. The Government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

On May 5, 2003, the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, vacated our opinion and judgment and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of *Demore v. Kim,*— U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 1708, 155 L.Ed.2d 724 (2003). In *Demore,*the Court majority rejected the criminal alien’s challenge to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and concluded that “[djetention during removal proceedings is a constitutionally permissible part of the process.” We then asked counsel to provide us with their suggested dispositions in light of the above.

Counsel for the Government argued that we should vacate our decision and remand the case to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the case. Counsel for Radoncic also suggested that we remand the case to the District Court for further consideration “because some of the facts deemed critical in *Demore v. Kim*are absent from this case and this case has facts and circumstances not considered by the Supreme Court in *Demore v. Kim.”*We believe the arguments of the parties should be addressed by the District Court in the first instance. We will therefore vacate our prior opinion and judgment and remand this case to the District Court for its reconsideration.

For the reasons set forth above, we will vacate our prior opinion and judgment and remand this case to the District Court.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Sify Limited (formerly known as Satyam Infoway Limited)

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(Registration No. 333-101322) on Form S-8 and the registration statement
(Registration No. 333-101915) on Form F-3 of Sify Limited, of our report dated
April 17, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Sify Limited
(formerly known as Satyam Infoway Limited) as of March 31, 2003 and 2002 and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and
comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended March 31, 2003, which report appears in the Form 20-F of Sify
Limited dated July 1, 2003.



/s/ KPMG

Chennai, India
July 1, 2003
II 

Calendar No. 456

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2022

To designate the Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in 

Carbondale, Illinois the ‘‘Senator Paul Simon Federal Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 22, 2004

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. FITZGERALD) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

MARCH 10, 2004

Reported by Mr. INHOFE, without amendment 

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 250 West Cherry Street in Carbondale, Illinois the ‘‘Senator Paul 

Simon Federal Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF FEDERAL BUILDING. 

4 The Federal building located at 250 West Cherry 

5 Street in Carbondale, Illinois shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Senator Paul Simon Federal Building’’. 
2

S 2022 RS 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCE. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper or other record of the United States to the Federal 

4 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

5 a reference to the Senator Paul Simon Federal Building. 

Calendar No. 456

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2022

A BILL

To designate the Federal building located at 250 

West Cherry Street in Carbondale, Illinois the ‘‘Senator Paul Simon Federal Building’’. 

MARCH 10, 2004

Reported without amendment
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CARL BUXTON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 220 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 11th day of October, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
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 on Form 10-KSB of Empire Financial
Holding Company (the "Company") for fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Patrick E. Rodgers, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, 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 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ Patrick E. Rodgers                               April 6, 2005
 ---------------------------                          -------------
 Patrick E. Rodgers                                        Date
 Principal Executive Officer
#### Gustave A. Wolf v. William W. Irwin.

*Principal and agent*— Appeal—Conclusiveness *of finding of fury.*

The issue involved in this case was whether the defendant, in contracting for the printing of a record, bound himself or his client. And it is held that the finding of the jury of this disputed question of fact against the defendant is conclusive.

Error to Kent. -(Grove, J.)

Submitted on briefs December 5, 1890.

Decided December 24, 1890.

*Assumpsit.*Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*A. D. Haioley,*for appellant.

*If. H. Walker,*for plaintiff.

Grant, J.

This suit originated in justice’s court, and involves the sum of $14.35, being the cost of printing the record in the case of *Tate v. Hamilton,*81 Mich. 221. Plaintiff recovered judgment in justice’s court. Defendant appealed to the circuit court, where verdict and judgment were, again rendered for plaintiff, and. defendant appeals. The costs now amount to many times the value of the judgment.

The record was printed by one Neinhardt, at the agreed price of 3.5 cents per page. The agreement was made between Neinhardt and the defendant, who was the attorney for Tate in his appeal to this Court. Neinhardt assigned the claim to the plaintiff. The record in this case consists of 112 pages, the briefs for the appellant 32 pages, and the brief for the plaintiff 21 pages.

The principal question in the case, and the one upon which defendant’s liability hinges, is whether the defend*345ant in the agreement with Neinhardt bound himself or his client. It would be of no value to the profession or to the public to enter into the details of the evidence upon this question. It is sufficient to say that thé evidence upon the part of the plaintiff tended to show that Neinhardt did not know Tate;, that he dealt solely with the defendant; that he gave credit to the defendant; and that the contract was made with him as principal, and not as the agent of Tate. The evidence on the part of the defendant tended to show that he informed Neinhardt that the work was for Tate, and that he made the contract as his agent. A clear and concise issue of fact was presented for the determination of the jury. The court instructed the jury that the controversy was whether Mr. Irwin contracted with Mr. -Neinhardt upon his- own responsibility, rendering himself personally liable, or whether he contracted as the agent of his client, rendering his client liable for the work. All the instructions to the jury given by the circuit judge were based upon this proposition, and were correctly given. They were such as are familiar to the profession, and 'it would be profitless to repeat them here. It is unnecessary to consider any of the specific errors alleged. The jury found the disputed question of fact as to the defendant’s liability against him, and this is conclusive.

Judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement and related Prospectus (Form S-3 No. 333-115372) of eDiets.com, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90046) pertaining to the eDiets.com, Inc. Stock Option Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8No. 333-122763) pertaining to the eDiets.com, Inc. Equity Incentive Plan of our report dated February 28, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of eDiets.com, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

                                /s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

                                Certified Public Accountants 

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 

March 24, 2006