alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cox and Others *v.*Hodge.

Wednesday, *June*5.

If two persons make a promissory note, and one of them afterwards obtain possession of the note as his own property from the payee, the note is dis■charged.

APPEAL from the *Hendricks*Circuit Court.

Sullivan, J.

— Assumpsit by Hodge, for the use of Shannon, against Cox, Atkins, Merritt, and *Nichols*on a promissory note. The *capias*was returned “not found” as to *Atkins;*Cox, Merritt, and Nichols, appeared and pleaded, 1. Non assumpsit; 2. That the note sued on was given by defendants with said Atkins, as part consideration of a certain tract of land purchased by *Atkins*from Hodge, and that after-wards, &c., *Hodge*and Atkins, by an agreement made between them, cancelled and rescinded the contract for the sale of said land, and *Hodge*received said tract of land so sold as aforesaid from *Atkins*freed and released from said contract; and did then and there deliver up to *Atkins*the promissory note on which this suit is founded fully discharged and satisfied, &c.; 3. That on, &c., the said promissory *147note was “delivered to *Atkins*by *Hodge*fully paid and satisfied,” &c.; 4. Payment by *Atkins.*The plaintiff replied to the second plea, substantially, that the note was given in consideration of a tract of land sold by *Atkins*to *Cox;*that it was made payable to *Hodge*for the accommodation of *Atkins*and at his request, as part payment by *Atkins*to *Hodge*of the land purchased by the former from the latter as mentioned in said plea, and that *Atkins*signed the note as surety for Cok, &c.; and that when the contract between *Atkins*and *Hodge*was rescinded, as in said plea mentioned, the note was delivered to *Atkins*by *Hodge*as his own property, who afterwards for value received sold it to Shannon, for whose use this suit was brought,'&c. The replication to the third plea denied that the note was delivered up satisfied and cancelled as alleged; and the replication to the fourth plea denied the payment by *Atkins.*The defendants demurred to the replication to the second plea, but the Court overruled the demurrer. Issues were formed on the remaining pleas, and the cause was submitted to the Court- for trial. Judgment for the plaintiff.

C. C. Nave, for the appellants.

*J.*Morrison, for the appellee.

We are of opinion that the demurrer to the replication to the second plea should have been sustained. The replication is defective, because it shows that the note was discharged. Hodge, the payee, having received from one of the makers of the note an equivalent for it, surrendered it to him *as his own*property, which operated as an extinguishment of the debt. If *Atkins*was really the surety of Cok, and has paid the debt of his principal, the law affords him a remedy. It is not by suing on a note that has been discharged.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
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/A of Jesup &
Lamont, Inc. (formerly Empire Financial Holding Company) (the "Company") for
fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James M. Matthew, 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/ James M. Matthew                                 April 28, 2008
--------------------                                 --------------
James M. Matthew                                          Date
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
Order entered June 17, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00377-CV

YLDEFONSO M. AVILA, Appellant

V.

BAYLOR SCOTT AND WHITE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-21-02232-E

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s June 15, 2022 motion for extension of time to 

file his brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief be filed no later than 

June 30, 2022. 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000892158
<NAME> LAUREL CAPITAL GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             816
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           4,041
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     49,861
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          22,376
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            21,624
<LOANS>                                        160,576
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,809
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 243,217
<DEPOSITS>                                     190,257
<SHORT-TERM>                                    16,793
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              5,026
<LONG-TERM>                                      7,632
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,486
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 243,217
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,812
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,349
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    65
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                12,226
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,410
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,279
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,947
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       13
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,932
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,605
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,605
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,489
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.13
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.47
<LOANS-NON>                                        586
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,866
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       80
<RECOVERIES>                                        13
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,809
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,780
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             29


</TABLE>
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2023

To limit Department of Defense contracting with firms under investigation 

by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 22, 2004

Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. LAUTENBERG) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To limit Department of Defense contracting with firms under 

investigation by the Inspector General of the Department 

of Defense.

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

4 CONTRACTING WITH FIRMS UNDER INVES5 TIGATION BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF 

6 THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. 

7 (a) LIMITATION.—No official of the Department of 

8 Defense may enter into a contract with, or otherwise pro9 cure any property or services from, a person while such 

10 person is under investigation by the Inspector General of 
2

•S 2023 IS 

1 the Department of Defense, unless the selection of such 

2 person for such contract or other procurement is made 

3 with full and open competition. 

4 (b) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—

5 (1) AUTHORITY.—The President may waive the 

6 applicability of subsection (a) to a person in the case 

7 of any contract or other procurement of the Depart8 ment of Defense if the President determines that it 

9 is necessary to enter into such contract or other pro10 curement with such person in the national security 

11 interests of the United States. 

12 (2) NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.—Not later 

13 than 15 days before granting a waiver under para14 graph (1), the President shall transmit a notification 

15 of the waiver to Congress. The notification shall in16 clude a description of the procurement to which the 

17 waiver relates, the person from whom the procure18 ment is to be made, and the justification for grant19 ing the waiver. 

20 (c) FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION DEFINED.—In 

21 this section, the term ‘‘full and open competition’’ has the 

22 meaning given such term in section 4 of the Office of Fed23 eral Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

Of Interim Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of eDiets.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert T. Hamilton, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

Date: March 30, 2006



By:

/s/ Robert T. HamiltonName:

Robert T. HamiltonTitle:

Interim Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
has been provided to eDiets.com, Inc. and will be retained by eDiets.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement onForm S-8 (No.  333-122885) pertaining to the Coastal BankingCompany, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated March 24,2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Coastal BankingCompany, Inc. and Subsidiary incorporated by reference in the AnnualReport on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

 
| /s/  Elliott Davis, LLC     |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Elliott  Davis, LLC         |
| April  14, 2006             |
| Greenville,  South Carolina |

 

----
**Exhibit 10.3.43**Board of Directors CompensationOn September 7, 2006 the Board of Directors approved changes in the compensation for non-employeedirectors and pursuant to that approval the Compensation Committeeapproved grants of restricted stockto non-employee directors under the Company’s Long TermIncentive Plan with the number of shares granted to be determined bythe formula described below. The changes in cashcompensation and the award of restricted stock will both be effective November 1, 2006.Thechanges include increasing the annual cash retainer for non-employeedirectors by $4,000, increasing the cash compensation for the LeadDirector by $5,000, increasing the cash compensation for the AuditCommittee Chairman by $2,500, increasing the restricted stock grantfor the Chairman of the Board of Directors by 2,500 shares, andchanging the annual grant of restricted stock compensation fornon-employee directors from 7,500 shares to the number of shares witha value approximately equal to the annual cash retainer as ofNovember 1 of each year.Each non-employee director will receive an annual retainer of $41,500. Supplemental annual cashcompensation will be provided to the directors holding the following positions in the amounts shownin the following table:          Position  Cash Retainer  Chairman of Board of Directors  $15,000   Lead Director  $15,000   Chairman of Audit Committee  $7,500   Chairman of Compensation Committee  $5,000   Chairmanof the Research and Development Committee  $5,000   Each non-employee director will receive a grant of restricted stock on November 1 of each year.The value of the restricted stock will equal as closely as possible, subject to rounding to preventissuance of fractional shares, the annual cash retainer paid to non-employee directors ($41,500 forthe period November 1, 2006 through and including October 31, 2007). The number of shares awardedwill be calculated based upon the average closing price for the Company’s stock for the four weeksending prior to November 1 of each year. The restricted stock will vest 1/12th per month, and anyunvested restricted stock will be forfeited upon termination of an individual’s service as adirector.Supplemental restricted stock, with the same vesting provisions as described above, will beprovided on November1 of each year to the directors holding the following positions in the amounts shown in the followingtable:             Number of Shares of  Position  Restricted Stock  Chairman of Board of Directors   5,000   Lead Director   5,000   Chairman of Audit Committee   5,000   Chairman of Compensation Committee   5,000   Chairman of the Research and Development Committee   2,500
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 Telkonet Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I,Richard J. Leimbach,
Chief Financial Officer of Telkonet, 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/
Richard J. Leimbach




Richard
J. Leimbach


Chief
Financial Officer


December
11, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, the undersigned officer of Sandston Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  May 10, 2011
/s/ Daniel J. DormanName:
Daniel J. DormanTitle:
President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





The foregoing certification (i) accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, (ii) will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (iii) will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it by reference.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Sandston Corporation and will be retained by Sandston Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[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: 2010-2811]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

    Time and Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 9 a.m.-12 Noon.
    Place: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East-West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.
    Status: Open to the Public--Commission Briefing.
    Matter To Be Considered: Unblockable Drains/Minimum State 
Requirements for Grants/Public Accommodations-Virginia Graeme Baker 
Pool and Spa Safety Act.
    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. 2010-2811 Filed 2-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
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 Sense Holdings, Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dore Scott Perler, Chief Executive
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 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Dore Scott Perler                   Date:  April 14, 2006
---------------------                          --------------
Dore Scott Perler
Chief Executive Officer
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Building NASA Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001

November 2, 2021

Reply to Attn of: General Law Practice Group
TO: Distribution
FROM: Agency Counsel for Ethics

SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance by NASA Employees at the Women in
Aerospace Awards Dinner on December 2, 2021

On December 2, 2021, the Women in Aerospace (WIA), a nonprofit organization under section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, will host an awards dinner at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in
Pentagon City, Virginia, at 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. WIA is in control of the organizing, planning
and sending of invitations to this event. The event honors women whose outstanding
contributions to the aerospace community.

Approximately 400 people are expected to attend this event. Attendees will have a diversity of
views or interests and will include personnel from other federal agencies, representatives of the
USS. legislative branch, state and local officials, representatives from the media, academia,
industry, and international partner organizations. The estimated value of the dinner, including all
food and drinks, is approximately $99 per person. Attendance at this event will allow NASA
attendees to exchange information regarding various NASA programs with attendees from other
organizations. I find that these event meets the requirements of a "widely attended gathering" as
defined in 5 C.F.R. §2635.204(g). I further determine that there is an Agency interest in having
NASA personnel attend these events because it will provide an opportunity for the invited
persons to exchange ideas and views pertaining to NASA’s policies, programs, and operations.

NASA employees — including NASA employees in non-career positions who are required to
sign the ethics pledge under Executive Order 13989 — who do not have a significant role in a
matter affecting the interests of WIA may accept an invitation for free attendance to the event.

In those circumstances, I find that the Agency’s interest in attendance outweighs any concern
that the individual may be, or may appear to be, improperly influenced in the performance of
their duties.

However, NASA employees whose duties have a significant role in any matter affecting the
interests of WIA, such as procurement duties, program management, or negotiating a Space Act
Agreement, should seek a separate determination from their local ethics counselor as to whether
they may accept the invitation for free attendance.


Attendees are also reminded to exercise any COVID-19 precautions appropriate to their
individual situation.

ZR A

Adam F. Greenstone
#### Mi Ja Lee, Respondent, v Paul K. Glicksman et al., Appellants.

[789 NYS2d 276]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated February 17, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to renew *670and/or reargue the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), which was granted by prior order of the same court dated August 21, 2003, and, upon renewal and reargument, denied the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a motion for leave to renew and reargue is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court *(see Daniel Perla Assoc. v Ginsberg,*256 AD2d 303 [1998]; *Loland v City of New York,*212 AD2d 674 [1995]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew and/or reargue.

Moreover, although the defendants made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]), the affirmation of the plaintiff’s treating physician submitted upon renewal and reargument in opposition to the defendant’s motion was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, upon renewal and reargument, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Florio, J.P., Adams, Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.