alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PATRICIA EYRICH v. CONNY H. DAM AND ROBERT EARL D/B/A ROBERTS BROS. CIRCUS.

April 10, 1984.

Petition for certification denied. (See 193 *N.J.Super.*244)
**Exhibit      8.1**

**LIST      OF SUBSIDIARIES**

| **Name                of Subsidiary**      | **Country                of Incorporation**         |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| Radware                Inc.                | New                Jersey, United States of America |
| Radware                UK Limited          | United                Kingdom                       |
| Radware                France              | France                                              |
| Radware                Srl                 | Italy                                               |
| Radware                GmbH                | Germany                                             |
| Nihon                Radware KK            | Japan                                               |
| Radware                Australia Pty. Ltd. | Australia                                           |
| Radware                Singapore Pte. Ltd. | Singapore                                           |
| Radware                Korea Ltd.          | Korea                                               |
| Radware                Canada Inc.         | Canada                                              |
| Radware                GmbH                | Switzerland                                         |
| Radware                India Pvt. Ltd.     | India                                               |
| Covelight                Systems, Inc.(*)  | Delaware,                United States of America   |

----
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

PYRAMID DIVERSIFIED SERVICES, 

INC., d/b/a Simple HR, 

Plaintiff Counterdefendant 

Defendant Counterclaimant -

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. John 

Doak, Insurance Commissioner, as 

Receiver for Park Avenue Property & 

Casualty Insurance Company, f/k/a 

Providence Property & Casualty Insurance 

Company, 

Defendant Counterclaimant CrossClaim Defendant Plaintiff 

Counterdefendant - Appellee,

PACA, INC.,

Defendant Cross Claimant, 

and

PACA, INC.,

Third-Party Plaintiff, 

SKILSTAF, INC., 

Intervenor Third-Party Plaintiff,

v. 

No. 14-6137

(D.C. Nos. 5:09-CV-00622-HE

and 5:12-CV-00457-HE)

(W.D. Okla.)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 28, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-6137 Document: 01019544819 Date Filed: 12/28/2015 Page: 1 
2

PROVIDENCE HOLDINGS, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant.

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

The stipulation filed by the parties to dismiss the captioned appeal is construed as 

a motion for voluntary dismissal and is granted. Each party shall bear its own costs.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 14-6137 Document: 01019544819 Date Filed: 12/28/2015 Page: 2
#### John L. Creech *v.*John E. Smith.

Land — Parol Sale — Purchase Money Refunded.

A party having sold, by parol, more land than was embraced in his deed and there being no memorandum by which his heirs could be charged, the purchase’ money having been paid, its value should have been ascertained and the amount deducted from the price of the land to which deeedant had title.

APPEAL PROM HARLAN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 13, 1867.

Opinion op ti-ie Court by

Judge Williams :

It is manifest from the proof that Henry J. Creech sold by parol, to appellant more land than is embraced in the deed of Penington to the latter, as said deed only includes the land sold Penington to H. J. Creech, the purchase money for which was paid by appellant to Penington as per agreement between H. J. and J. L. Creech.

II. J. Creech having died without executing any memorandum by which he or his heirs can be charged as to this land its value whatever it may be should be ascertained and deducted from the note sued on, unless appellee should establish by evidence the allegations of his response that he was induced to purchase said *133note by appellant; no such evidence now being in tbe case tbis allegation is unsnstained.

*James, for Appellant.*

*Dishman, for Appellee.*

As tbe record now stands tbe court erred in giving judgment for the remainder of tbe note deducting tbe credit and tbe judgment is reversed for further proceedings.
#### Hannah Clark *v.*W. P. Beauchamp.

Deeds — Procurement—Absence of Fraud — Contents Understood.

Where the proof fails to show any fraud on the part of the grantee - in the procurement of a deed, or that the grantor did not thoroughly understand its contents and voluntarily executed it, the court will not set it aside for minor causes.

July 3, 1867.

APPEAL PROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT,

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Peters:

At the execution of the deed the evidence shows that the subject was discussed by appellant in the presence of the subscribing witnesses, and she persistently refused to sign it until it was so changed as to leave her about ten, or nearly ten, acres, more land than would have been left to her, if she had signed it, as it was at first presented to her.

Her husband, in his lifetime had contracted to sell both parcels of land to appellee; it does not appear that she was averse to that sale, and by the writing evidencing that contract filed as an exhibit in this case, two hundred dollars, one-half of the price at which the tract containing *1121/2*acres was sold, were secured to be paid to her, and that she can get whenever she is willing to surrender the possession of that part of the land which she retains to appellee; which, according to the evidence, is equal in value to one-third of the two tracts.

The proof fails to show any fraud on the part of appellee in the procurement of the deed, or that appellawr did not thoroughly understand its contents, and voluntarily execute it. No error is perceived in the judgment, wherefore the same is *affirmed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     CONSOLIDATED   BALANCE  SHEET  OF   MULTIMEDIA   ACCESS   CORPORATION   AND
     SUBSIDIARIES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
     OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                  US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-01-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          18,539
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  228,564
<ALLOWANCES>                                    43,000
<INVENTORY>                                    310,133
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,064,770
<PP&E>                                         786,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                 325,527
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,691,258
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,472,088
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           532
<OTHER-SE>                                  (5,781,362)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,691,258
<SALES>                                        901,262
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,095,012
<CGS>                                          393,918
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  393,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,203,187
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                42,777
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             513,979
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,393,965)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,393,965)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,393,965)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.91)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32
 
 CERTIFICATIONS
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 OncoVista Innovative Therapies, Inc. (the
Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Alexander L. Weis,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:  March
31, 2010
 
 /s/
      Alexander L. WeisAlexander
      L. Weis, Ph.D.,Chief
      Executive Officer andChief
      Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. IRENE MILLER.

July 12, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Michael F. Zinn, as Cotrustee and Beneficiary of the Zinn Family Charitable Trust, Appellant, v Salomon, Smith Barney, Inc., Defendant, and Louis W. Pierro et al., Respondents.

[787 NYS2d 309]

*355Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered December 2, 2003, insofar as appealed from, dismissing the complaint as against defendants-respondents at the close of plaintiffs evidence, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a successful businessman, sought retirement advice and estate planning from defendant Salomon, Smith Barney, Inc. (SSB), which recommended that plaintiff retain defendant law firm to set up a charitable remainder trust. Defendant Louis W. Pierro, Esq. drafted the documents and also became a cotrustee of the subject trust, which invested its assets in variable annuities. After the trust’s assets declined substantially, plaintiff commenced this action against both SSB and the law firm defendants. SSB moved to compel arbitration of plaintiffs causes of action against it, whereupon an arbitration was held that resulted in an award in SSB’s favor. Plaintiff did not challenge the award, and proceeded to trial against the law firm defendants. After plaintiff presented his case, the trial court correctly ruled that he failed to show, prima facie, that defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of the trust’s losses *(see Schwartz v Olshan Grundman Frome & Rosenzweig,*302 AD2d 193, 198 [2003]). Rather, the evidence showed that plaintiff had been actively involved in all of the trust’s investment decisions; that he executed, upon the advice of independent counsel, a waiver of conflicts letter; and that his signed application for the variable annuities unambiguously set forth the proposed investment allocations and plaintiffs understanding that the annuity payments and other values provided by the contract were not guaranteed. Plaintiffs evidence also showed that he received, and presumably read, the prospectus and contracts for the subject annuities, as well as the confirmations and statements relating to the trust account, and participated in choosing the allocation of equity mutual funds. It is evident that plaintiff closely monitored the trust’s investments, and, significantly, he continued to follow SSB’s advice not to make changes in the investment allocations long after Pierro had been discharged as trustee. Nevertheless, plaintiff argues that Pierro should not have done what plaintiff himself did, namely, follow SSB’s suggestion to stay the course, and should have instead transferred the trust’s assets into fixed income investments. The law firm defendants cannot be held liable in mal*356practice for investment decisions that plaintiff himself made. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Marlow and Gonzalez, 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 Report of Merix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
May 27, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark R. Hollinger, Chief Executive Officer and acting 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/ Mark R. HollingerMark R. HollingerChief Executive Officer and acting Chief Financial OfficerAugust 23, 2006
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61125-61126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8911]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Masterpieces From the National Galleries of 
Scotland'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Masterpieces from the National Galleries 
of Scotland,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
The Frick Collection, New York, NY, from on or about November 5, 2014, 
until on or about February 5, 2015, the de Young Museum, Fine Arts 
Museums of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, from on or about March 7, 
2015, until on or about May 31, 2015, the Kimball Art Museum, Ft. 
Worth, TX, from on or about June 28, 2015, until on or about September 
20, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be 
determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public 
Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.


[[Page 61126]]


    Dated: October 3, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-24142 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
EXHIBIT 99.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADDED BY


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northwest Bancorporation, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher C. Jurey, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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




| | (b) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and
for the period covered by the Report.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




By

/S/    CHRISTOPHER C.
JUREYChristopher C. Jurey, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





Date: November 12, 2002
Exhibit
      31.1




**SECTION
      302 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**




*On
      March 21, 2003, the Company terminated the employment of its four senior
      officers due to corporate mismanagement in the form of accounting irregularities
      and securities fraud during the fiscal years ended October 31, 2002 and 2001.
      At
      the time of their termination, all of these former officers were the subject
      of
      an investigation by the United States Department of Justice and three were
      subject to an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. On August
      19, 2003, as a result of the United States Department of Justice investigation,
      three of the former officers pled guilty to conspiring to inflate the revenue
      and earnings of the Company and for lying to investigators and the fourth former
      officer pled guilty to obstruction of justice. Also on August 19, 2003, the
      former officers who were under investigation by the Securities and Exchange
      Commission agreed to a consent decree with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission. As a result of the actions of the former officers of the Company,
      and due to the Company’s inability to adequately verify the results of the
      Company’s operations for the year ended October 31, 2002 because of incomplete
      or missing data, the Company was not able to prepare complete and accurate
      financial statements for the quarters ended January 31, 2002, April 30, 2002,
      July 31, 2002 and the year ended October 31, 2002, except for the balance sheet
      dated as of October 31, 2002 included in the Company’s annual report on Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2002. Since the Company does not
      have complete and accurate financial statements for 2002, certain portions
      of
      this report do not contain the required comparison to the results of operations
      in 2002. Consequently, the Company’s current Chief Executive Officer is unable
      to include the certification required by Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002.*
#### STATE v. STEPHENS

No. 10A96-2

Case below: Johnston County Superior Court

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Johnston County, denied 18 December 2001.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RAYMOND GEORGE TAYLOR.

July 11, 1978.

Petition for certification granted.
#### Martha Nunez et al., Respondents, v Teresa Fernandez, Appellant, and Lucrecia Escalera, Respondent.

[788 NYS2d 351]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, *383J.), entered October 15, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Fernandez’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Teresa Fernandez dismissing the complaint as against her.

In this rear-end collision case where defendant Fernandez’s stopped vehicle was struck and the motion court granted her summary judgment against defendant Escalera, the driver of the offending vehicle, it was error to deny her summary judgment as well against plaintiffs, who were passengers in the offending vehicle *(see Figueroa v Luna,*281 AD2d 204, 206 [2001]; *Johnson v Phillips,*261 AD2d 269 [1999]). Escalera offered no opposition to summary judgment in the motion court. That court’s reliance on *Garcia v Tri-County Ambulette Serv.*(282 AD2d 206 [2001]) was misplaced, inasmuch as that decision granted an innocent plaintiff/passenger summary judgment as to liability against both vehicle operators, whereas here, one vehicle operator has been held solely liable. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; NIBIB 2015-01 R13 Review.                    

*Date:*                         November 25, 2014.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, Suite 920, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ruixia Zhou, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 957, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-4773,                         *zhour@mail.nih.gov.*

Dated: October 2, 2014.

David Clary,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-24061 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P