alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mark Finkelstein et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Warner Music Group Inc. et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[787 NYS2d 867]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered October 31, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, granted so much of defendants’ motion to dismiss the second cause of action as against defendant Warner Music Group and portions of that cause of action as against defendant The Rhythm Method Inc., but denied so much of that motion as *416sought dismissal of the first and ninth causes of action, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion denied with respect to so much of the second and ninth causes of action as allege breach of fiduciary duties after formation of the joint venture, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The allegations of a relationship of trust and confidence prior to the formation of the joint venture are factually unsupported, and thus, the claims for breach of fiduciary duty stemming from these allegations were properly dismissed. The claims for breach of fiduciary duties committed after formation of the joint venture were sufficiently supported. Moreover, parties are permitted to plead in the alternative (CPLR 3014), so that dismissal of these claims was premature at this stage of the litigation *(see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman Sachs & Co.,*7 AD3d 418, 420 [2004]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 12, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-61123

Summary Calendar

 

FIFI DAVIS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

MARCUS GORDON; MIKE MOORE,

Attorney General for the State

of Mississippi; LAWRENCE KELLY,

Respondents-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:02-CV-84-LN

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

Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fifi Davis, Mississippi prisoner # R6964, appeals the

district court’s dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee of her

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging her three convictions for

uttering forgery. She contends that she was indigent and could not

afford the $5 filing fee, that her family had sent the funds, that

the court should have removed the funds from her prison account,

and that the court denied her due process by dismissing the case
No. 02-61123

-2-

without holding a hearing. Davis has not shown that the district

court abused its discretion in dismissing her habeas petition.

See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 771 (5th Cir. 1997).

Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Huff *v.*Beall & Rachford.

Title Bond — Eviction — Warranty — Limitations.

A. purchased of B. certain lands upon which B. had given a mortgage, a payment having been made to B. by A. B. executes a bond for title to indemnity A. against eviction under the mortgage and to convey the land upon payment of the mortgage debt. The mortgage was never paid and A. was evicted.. *Held,*that, as there was no breach of the bond, the Statute of Limitations did not begin to run until after the eviction.

APPEAL EROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT.

June 23, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Marshall :

There is evidence conducing to prove that the defendants, Beall & Bachford, executed the writing, on a copy of which the suit was brought, and the original of which was indorsed on the bond of B. D. Beall, etc., for a title and refers to it. There is also evidence of the genuineness of the receipt for $140 written under the indorsement, and of the loss of the original.

The petition avers a consideration for the bond sued on, which, besides other evidence conducing to prove it, is to be implied from the facts stated in the bond sued on, and is established by comparing it with the title bond on which it is indorsed. The manifest object of the bond sued on was to indemnify Huff against the mortgage to McArthur made before his purchase, or to guarantee the title sold to Huff against that mortgage, and we are of ■opinion that there was no breach of the bond until Huff was evicted under the mortgage title, which occurred within much less than seven years before the commencement of this action, so that the plea of the defendants that more than seven years had elapsed after the accrual of the cause of action before the commencement of this suit is disproved by the record of eviction.

The same result would have followed if the defendants had been immediate parties to the title bond, since the conveyance was to be made only when the purchase money should be fully paid, which has never been done, and the eviction under the prior mortgage would have shown a breach of the bond. • As already *50said, there was evidence conducing to prove the payment of $140 by receipt on the bond and otherwise, and the recital of the title bond that a certain sum was to be paid in hand and was actually paid is *prima facie*evidence of that payment.

*Hallam &*Lindsey, *for appellees.*

It seems to us, therefore, that there was evidence which would have authorized a verdict for the plaintiff and that the court erred in instructing the jury to find for the defendant.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial in conformity with this opinion.
**EXHIBIT 2.9**

**English Summary of the First Amendment to Ultrapar Participações S.A.3rd Public Offering Indenture of Simple Debentures,Non-Convertible, Unsecured and Non-Preferred in a Single Series between Ultrapar Participações S.A. and Pentágono S/A DTVM, dated June 3, 2009.**

The agreement amends the indenture between Ultrapar Participacoes S.A. (“Ultrapar”) and Pentágono S/A DTVM, dated May 20, 2009 forUltrapar’s third public debentures offering. The agreement alters the dates on which interest payments are due, requiring that Debentures be paid on the 360 day anniversary from the date of the first subscription of the Debentures. The dateswhich interest payments are due are May 30, 2010, May 25, 2011 and May 19, 2012. 

 

1
| (1) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: May 16, 2011 |   |
|--------------------|--------|
|               |   |   |
|               | By:    | /s/ James S. Kuo, M.D., M.B.A. |
|               |   | Name: James S. Kuo, M.D., M.B.A. |
|               |   | Title: President and Chief Executive Officer |
|               |   | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial |
|               |   | Officer) |

----
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 61880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24390]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    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 Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Muscle and 
Rheumatic Diseases Related Clinical Study Grants Review.
    Date: November 7, 2014.
    Time: 10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, 
Suite 800--Conference Room, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Kan Ma, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Arthritis, 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, NIH, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, 
Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-451-4838, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9949892cbb994989095d7979091d79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d000c065f2d000c040143030405430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 7, 2014.
Carolyn Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-24390 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 4.9**

**English Language Summary of the 4th Amendment to the Ethylene Supply Agreement between**

**Braskem S.A. and Oxiteno Nordeste S.A. Indústria e Comércio dated January 1, 2013,**

The agreement amends the price and quantity of the ethylene supplied pursuant to the Ethylene Supply Agreement between Braskem S.A. (“Braskem”)and Oxiteno Nordeste S.A. (“Oxiteno”), dated June 13, 2008 (“Supply Agreement”). The maximum and minimum annual quantity of ethylene that Oxiteno may purchase from Braskem and Braskem may supply to Oxiteno was changed to aminimum of 205 thousand tons and a maximum 220 thousand tons. In addition, the ethylene price will be calculated on a monthly basis as provided for therein, primarily based on the average price of North West Europe Free Delivered (NWE FD)reference prices of the month, and can vary depending on the quantity purchased by Oxiteno. All other provisions set forth in the Supply Agreement remain unaltered.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. SCOTT 

PRUITT, in his official capacity as 

Attorney General of Oklahoma, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, in her 

official capacity as Secretary of the United 

States Department of Health and Human 

Services; JACOB J. LEW, in his official 

capacity as Secretary of the United States 

Department of the Treasury, 

 Defendants - Appellants.

No. 14-7080

(D.C. No. 6:11-CV-00030-RAW)

(E.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter comes on for consideration of the response filed by the appellants to 

this court’s order of June 29, 2015. The appellants state that in light of the Supreme Court 

decision in King v. Burwell, 135 S.Ct. 2480 (2015), the district court judgment should be

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 28, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-7080 Document: 01019467064 Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Page: 1 
2

reversed. The appellee agrees. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 

REVERSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Ellen Rich Reiter

 Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 14-7080 Document: 01019467064 Date Filed: 07/28/2015 Page: 2
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OCTuS, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John Belden, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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 operations of the Company.

/ s /  John Belden

John Belden
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

August 1, 2003
No. 70.

#### James A. Wade and others, trustees, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*James A. Russell, defendant.

[1.] To defeat’ the marital right, the intention to create a separate estate in the wife must be unequivocal.

Trover, in Troup Superior Court. Decided by Judge Warmer, November Term, 1854.

This case turned on the construction of the following clauses in the will of Hudson Wade, deceased:

“ It is my will, that my whole estate be kept together in common stock, for the benefit of my family; and as my children arrive at the age of twenty-one years or marry, they are to receive the sum of Five Thousand Dollars, each, in money or property, at the discretion of my executor — the portions of my daughters, Mary Jane,'Sarah Louisa, Julia Elvira and Susan Hudson, I do give to John W. Porter, James A. Wade and William F. Wade, in trust, for the use, benefit and behoof of my said daughters.”

Item: “ When my youngest child shall arrive at the age of twenty-one or marry, the remainder of my estate, after each child has received Five Thousand Dollars as aforesaid, shall be equally divided among all my children (naming them); the shares of my aforesaid daughters I give to the trustees aforesaid, for the use and benefit of my said daughters.” The defendant married Mary Jane Wade, and her share of the pro*426perty was given into his possession, where it had remained ever since; and this action was brought by the trustees named in-the will, to recover the possession of the negro property from him. The Court held, that they could not recover and non-suited the plaintiffs; and on this decision, error is assigned.

Dougherty, for plaintiff in error.

Warner, for defendant in error.

*By the Court.*

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

Whatever kind of estate it was, which the testator *intended'*to create in the daughters, he intended to create it in them, whether they ever married or not. This is clear. And therefore, it cannot be said, that he intended only a *separate*estate in them. Such an estate could only exist in them, in case they married. Indeed, the words of the will are as suitable to-the creation of estates in *sons*as in daughters.

[1.] And it is well settled, that to defeat the marital right,, the *intention*to create a separate estate in the wife must be unequivocal. (Hi*ll on Trustees,*421.) And in this, the intention to create a separate estate cannot be said to be unequivocal.

So we think the non-suit should not be disturbed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited consolidated financial statements found in the Company's Form 10Q for
the nine months ended December 31, 1996, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,648
<SECURITIES>                                     1,693
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,707
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,284
<PP&E>                                           9,646
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,422
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,187
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,863
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,065)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,992
<SALES>                                          4,434
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,816
<CGS>                                              409
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,304
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,564)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       111
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,675)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,675)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

         In connection with the Annual Report of 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, Andrew Goldrich, 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 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/ Andrew Goldrich                     Date:  April 14, 2006
-------------------                            --------------
Andrew Goldrich
Chief Financial Officer
2023 NASA SBIR Ignite Phase I Awardees

Announced December 20, 2023

Listed by small business name, location, and proposal title.

• Astral Forge, LLC, Palo Alto, California: Development of a High-temperature 

(>1200 C) Crystal Growth Furnace toward Semiconductor In-Space Production 

Applications in LEO for Terrestrial Use

• Astrobotic Technology Inc., Pittsburgh: Photon Counting Sensor for In-space 

Debris Detection

• Benchmark Space Systems, Burlington, Vermont: Resilient Independent 

Propulsive Controlled On-orbit Recovery Device (RIPCORD)

• Brayton Energy, LLC, Hampton, New Hampshire: High Efficiency Solid Oxide 

Fuel Cell / Turbogenerator Hybrid Electric Propulsion System

• Channel-Logistics LLC dba Space-Eyes, Miami: Fire Watch: Prediction and 

Detection of Wildfires Through Advanced AI/ML

• GeoVisual Analytics, Westminster, Colorado: Decision Support for Water 

Management in the Agriculture Sector

• Lunar Resources, Inc., Houston: Silicon and Iron Regolith Extraction on the 

Moon (SIRE)

• Space Lab Technologies, LLC, Boulder, Colorado: EcoMine – Bioregenerative 

Mineral Mining from Lunar Regolith

• Space Tango, Lexington, Kentucky: TangoBox: Next Generation Infrastructure 

for In-Space Production on Commercial Space Stations

• VerdeGo Aero, De Leon Springs, Florida: VerdeGo Aero VH-3 Hybrid Electric 

Powerplant
#### IN RE ESTATE OF WHITAKER

No. 402P01

Case below: 144 N.C. App. 295

Petition by caveators for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 2001.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

** **

**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 theAnnual Report of ICOP Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for theyear ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 

 
|          | /s/  DAVID C. OWEN                      |
|---------------|-----------------------------------------|
|          | David  C. Owen                          |
|          | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
|          | * *                                |
| April 4, 2005 | * *                                |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ICOPDigital, Inc. and will be retained by ICOP Digital, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### STATE v. CUMMINGS

No. 4A95-3

Case below: Brunswick County Superior Court

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Brunswick County, denied 4 October 2001.
December 28, 2012



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KATY SHUK CHI LAU ME SSIER , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00369

- CV V.

LUC J. MESSIER , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the final decre e of divorce , signed February 11, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and
find error in the decree

. We therefore MODIFY the decree of the court below to dissolve the requirements that Katy inform the State Depart ment and a foreign consulate or embassy of the travel restrictions contained in the final decree and provide those institutions with a copy of the decree, as well as the requirement that she provide proof of receipt back to the trial court.

We order the f

inal decree of the court below AFFIRMED except as modified in this judgment.

We order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.