alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Contribution Agreement, made and entered into as of August 18, 2005



 Exhibit 10.17 
  
 Executable Copy 
  
 CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT 
  
 This Contribution (“Contribution Agreement”) is made and entered into as of August 18, 2005, by and between Winstar Spectrum, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (“Transferor”), and IDT Spectrum, LLC., a Delaware limited liability company (“Transferee”). 
  
 WHEREAS, Transferor is an affiliate of Transferee; and 
  
 WHEREAS, Transferor’s member has decided to redeploy certain assets of Transferor by transferring them to Transferee in
order to maximize their income producing value; 
  
 NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 
  
 1. Contribution. Transferor hereby contributes, transfers and assigns
to Transferee and its permitted assigns, forever, without recourse, representation or warranty, all of Transferor’s right, title and interest in and to the assets set forth on Schedule A hereto. 
  
 2. Exclusive Benefit. Nothing in this Contribution Agreement, express
or implied, is intended to, or shall be construed to confer upon, or give to, any person, firm, corporation or entity other than Transferee, its successors and assigns, any remedy or claim under or by reason this Contribution Agreement or any
provisions hereof, and all the provisions contained herein shall be for the exclusive benefit of Transferee, its successors and assigns. 
  
 3. Governing Law. This Contribution Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New Jersey, without
regard to conflicts of laws principles thereof. 
  
 4.
Counterparts. This Contribution Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and both of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 
  

 1 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contribution Agreement as of the date
first written above. 
  

			
	 WINSTAR SPECTRUM, LLC

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Abilio Pereira

	 Name:
	 	 Abilio Pereira

	 Title:
	 	 Chief Executive Officer

	
	AGREED AND ACCEPTED:
	
	 IDT SPECTRUM, LLC

		
	By:	 	 /s/ John C. Petrillo

	 Name:
	 	 John C. Petrillo

	 Title:
	 	 Chief Executive Officer



  

 2 








  
 SCHEDULE A 

 
 IDT Spectrum, LLC 
  
 6 Point-to-Point Licenses (Transferred on August 18, 2005)

  

							
	ID.

	  	Call Sign

	  	 Transmit Location

	  	Expiration Date


	1.	  	WQCQ381	  	Richmond, VA	  	04/29/2015
	2.	  	WQCQ382	  	Richmond, VA	  	04/29/2015
	3.	  	WQCQ383	  	Monterey, VA	  	04/29/2015
	4.	  	WQCS875	  	Richmond, VA	  	05/17/2015
	5.	  	WQCS876	  	Richmond, VA	  	05/17/2015
	6.	  	WQDF389	  	Richmond, VA	  	08/10/2015

  

 3
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Fiscal Year 2021 Agency Report

1. Please provide a summary of your agency’s activities undertaken to carry out the provisions of 

OMB Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus 

Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities” and the National Technology Transfer and 

Advance Act (NTTAA). The summary should contain a link to the agency’s standards-specific 

website(s) where information about your agency’s standards and conformity assessment related 

activities are available.

When NARA used standards during rulemaking in FY 2021, we complied with Executive Order 12866, 

“Regulatory Planning and Review;” Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory

Review;” Executive Order 13610, “Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens;” Executive Order 

13609, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation;” Executive Order 13771, "Reducing Regulation 

and Controlling Regulatory Costs"; and OMB Circular A-4, “Regulatory Analysis.”

NARA promulgated no rules in FY 2021 using Government unique standards (GUS).

NARA uses both voluntary consensus standards (VCS) and GUS in our procurement activities. NARA's 

Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer relies on program office personnel (technical experts) to identify, 

manage, and review the standards used in procurements of products and services within their own 

program areas. NARA’s standards-related activities are available here:

https://www.archives.gov/preservation/technical

https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/storage-standards-toolkit

https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/prmd/standards-development.html

https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/write/handbook/ibr.pdf

2. Please list the government-unique standards (GUS) your agency began using in lieu of voluntary 

consensus standards during FY 2021. Please note that GUS which are still in effect from previous years 

should continue to be listed, thus the total number in your agency's report will include all GUS 

currently in use (previous years and new as of this FY): 0
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CANDACE SIMS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 2592

[ December 20, 2018 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800(a) motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2005CF015558BXX

.

Candace Sims, Ocala, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, T AYLOR and L EVINE

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>




                            MOORE CORPORATION LIMITED
           EXHIBIT 11 - CALCULATION OF EARNINGS AND EARNINGS PER SHARE
          UNDER UNITED STATES GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES
                    (Expressed in Thousands of U.S. Dollars,
                             except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                   2001              2000              1999
                                                                 ---------         ---------         ---------
<S>                 <C>                                          <C>               <C>               <C>
Numerator:

Net earnings (loss) (1)                                          $(269,964)        $ (45,304)        $  72,884

Denominator:

       Basic weighted average number of shares outstanding          88,648            88,457            88,457
                        Add: Dilutive options                          443               827               306
                        Add: Convertible debentures                 21,692              --                --
                                                                 ---------         ---------         ---------
       Diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding       110,783 (2)        89,284 (2)        88,763
                                                                 ---------         ---------         ---------

Earnings (loss) per share
       Basic                                                        ($3.05)           ($0.51)        $    0.82
       Diluted                                                      ($3.05)(2)        ($0.51)(2)     $    0.82

(1)  Refer to Note 24 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements on
     pages 44 to 47 of this Form 10-K.

(2)  Diluted weighted average shares outstanding were not used to calculate the
     diluted loss per share because the effect would be anti-dilutive.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated February 4, 2005,  accompanying the consolidated
financial  statements  and  schedules  included  in the Annual  Report of United
Capital  Corp.  and  Subsidiaries  on Form 10-K for the year ended  December 31,
2004. We hereby consent to the  incorporation by reference of said report in the
Registration  Statements of United Capital Corp. on Forms S-8 (Registration Nos.
33-28045,  33-65140,  333-28395,  333-57873  and  333-98645)  and  on  Form  S-3
(Registration No. 333-119807).

/s/ GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP

New York, New York
March 21, 2005
```
10187.

#### Adams *v.*Elbert County.

Decided September 18, 1919.

Action for damages; from city court of Elberton—Judge Tutt. October 12, 1918.

The action was for injury to the plaintiff from a fall when an automobile in which he was riding struck the guard-rail of a bridge of the defendant county, and the rail, which was alleged to be rotten and unsafe, gave way and the automobile was precipitated from the bridge. The verdict was for the defendant.

The extract from the charge to which exception was taken is as follows: “If you believe from the evidence in this case that the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding at the time that he alleges he was injured was being driven and operated by a person under the age of sixteen years, and if you further believe that the plaintiff knew that the said driver was under the age of sixteen years, then I charge you that any negligence of the driver on the occasion under investigation would be imputed to the plaintiff; and if you believe, from the evidence, that the injuries of the plaintiff, if any, were caused by the negligence of the driver, or by *177the failure of such driver to exercise ordinary care, or that the injuries of the plaintiff could have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care on the part of the part of the plaintiff or the driver of said car, then the plaintiff can not recover.” It is alleged that this is error because it precludes recovery if the plaintiff knew that the driver was under sixteen years of age; because it fails to submit to the jury the question whether the plaintiff was negligent or not in entering the car driven by a person under the age of sixteen years; because the negligence of the driver is not imputable to 'the plaintiff, it not appearing that he exercised or was under any duty to exercise control over the driver’s actions, and because the question whether he was under such duty was not submitted to the jury.

*176Bloodworth, J.

1. When considered in connection with the entire charge of the court and in the light of the evidence, there is no error harmful to the plaintiff in the excerpt from the charge of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial.

2. “This court, by the constitutional amendment creating it, is limited in jurisdiction to the correction of errors of law alone, and therefore has no power to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict is strongly contrary to the weight of evidence, if there is any evidence at all to support it.” *Edge*v. *Thomas,*9*Ga. App. 559*(71 S. E.*875); Cook*v. *McMurria,*19 *Ga. App.*491 (91 S. E.*785); Toole*v. *Jones,*19 *Ga. App.*24 (90 S. E. 732); *McCarty*v. *Keys,*19 *Ga. App.*494 (91 S. E. 875).

3. There is some evidence to support the .verdict, and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*

*177
      *J. T.*Sisk, for plaintiff. *Z. B.*Rogers, for defendant.
LIST OF DECISIONS ANNOUNCED BY 

ON FRIDAY, JULY 25, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

Wise, J.

1121291

Petition Granted. Writ Issued.

Ex parte Edgetech I.G., Inc. n/k/a Quanex I.G. Systems, Inc. PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Tiffin Motorhomes, Inc. v. Thompson I.G.,

LLC et al.) (Franklin Circuit Court: CV-13-900034).

Circuit Judge, Terry Lee Dempsey, (256) 332-8893

Pet. Atty., Brian Patrick Kappel, (205) 581-0700

Pet. Atty., Terry W. McCarthy, (205) 581-0700

Pet. Atty., Lana A. Olson

Resp. Chief Counsel, Chris T. Hellums, (205) 322-8880

Resp. Atty., Joseph Douglas Aiello, (256) 536-0588

Resp. Atty., Jeffrey Lowell Bowling, (256) 332-2880

Resp. Atty., David J. Hodge, (256) 536-0588

Resp. Atty., Booth G. Samuels, (205) 322-8880

Resp. Atty., Grant A. Wright, (256) 383-6357
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed November 1, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-172

Lower Tribunal No. 13-24785

________________

AIM Recovery Services, Inc.,

Appellant,

vs.

Quincy Williams,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Norma S. Lindsey, Judge.

Stok Folk + Kon, Robert A. Stok, Shoham Segal and Jamey R. Campellone,

for appellant.

Wasson & Associates, Chartered and Annabel C. Majewski, for appellee.

Before LAGOA, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.

EMAS, J.
Appellant, AIM Recovery Services, Inc., appeals a nonfinal order vacating a

default and default final judgment. We review the trial court’s order for a gross

abuse of discretion, Gables Club Marina, LLC v. Gables Condo. & Club Ass’n,

Inc., 948 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citing N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143

So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1962)), and affirm.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(b) authorizes entry of a default by the

court, but where the party has filed or served any document in the action,1 “that

party must be served with notice of the application for default.” In the instant case,

Williams alleged in his motion to vacate that the default and default final judgment

were void as having been rendered without notice to him or an opportunity to be

heard.2 

At an evidentiary hearing on Williams’s motion to vacate, the trial court

weighed the testimony, considered the other evidence presented, and concluded,

inter alia, that Williams did not receive notice of the application for default or

notice of the motion for default final judgment, and did not have an opportunity to

be heard. These determinations are supported by the record.

Because Williams established that he did not receive notice and was not

provided an opportunity to be heard, the default and default final judgment were

1

In response to the complaint, Williams filed a motion to dismiss.

2 At the commencement of the action, Williams was represented by counsel;

counsel subsequently withdrew and, at all times relevant to this appeal, Williams

was unrepresented.

2
void and properly vacated. As we held in Cellular Warehouse, Inc. v. GH Cellular,

LLC, 957 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) “[a] violation of the due process

guarantee of notice and an opportunity to be heard renders a judgment void.”

“Notice is the first and most essential element of due process and failure to give

notice of a default, when required, makes a default void.” M.W. v. SPCP Group

V, LLC, 163 So. 3d 518, 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). “This court has repeatedly held

that a judgment entered without notice to a party is void ab initio.” State, Dep’t of

Revenue ex rel. Prinzee v. Thurmond, 721 So. 2d 827, 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)

(and cases cited).

Affirmed.

3
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1



                        INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Hastings Entertainment, Inc.:

We consent to the use of our reports incorporated herein by reference and to
the reference to our firm under the heading "Experts" in the registration
statement on Form S-1 incorporated herein by reference.

                                                  /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Dallas, Texas
August 5, 1998
move FLIP B
IFTalk He3nmr "He3PolFlipOn()"
IFTalk He3nmr "He3AnaFlipOff()"
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  the  undersigned,  A.  F.  Petrocelli,  Chairman,
President and Chief Executive  Officer of United Capital Corp., (the "Company"),
does hereby  certify,  with respect to the Annual  Report of the Company on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") 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.

                           By: /s/ A. F. Petrocelli
                               --------------------
                                 A. F. Petrocelli
                                 Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
                                 March 22, 2004
```
#### Joel Blankenship, etc., *v.*Wm. Bartleston & Co.

Liens — Purchaser at Sheriff's Sale.

A purchaser of land at sheriff’s sale -with notice of a prior unrecorded mortgage carries only an equity in the land subject to tha prior equity of the mortgage.

Courts — Stare Decisis.

Questions of law, although decided on doubtful practice, should ordinarily remain, the law rather than be subject'to constant fluctuations according to the value of the court as differently constituted.

APPEAL PROM RUSSELL CIRCUIT COURT.

December 25, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

The question presented by this appeal is whether the claim of the purchasers of a tract of land-at a sheriff’s-sale under an execution shall prevail over that of mortgagees of an unrecorded mortgage of ■ prior date, and of which the purchasers had notice.

*159
      *Joe E. Hays, for appellants.*

*Van Winkle, for appellees.*

The registration act of 1785 does not differ materially from the provisions of Chapter 24, Revised Statutes, in respect to the validity of unrecorded deeds and mortgages touching the rights of creditors and purchasers without notice.

Prior to the adoption of the revised statutes the question as to the superior equity between the holder of a prior unrecorded mortgage and a purchase under an execution sale with notice of the mortgage was the subject of repeated adjudications in this court, and in which there is considerable vacillation. But in the late case of *Righter, etc., v. Forrester, etc.,*1 Bush 278, involving the question presented in this case for adjudication, a majority of this court, after a review of the reported cases, adhered to the conclusion of the court in *Campbell v. Mosby,*Litt. Select Cases 358, and adjudged that the purchaser at a sheriff’s sale with notice of a prior unrecorded mortgage acquired but an equity subject to' the prior equity of the mortgage and must be postponed.

This decision has been adhered to in subsequent cases, and the principle thus adjudicated has become a rule of property by which the rights of parties have been regulated, and we perceive no sufficient reason for a departure therefrom.

As was said by an able judge' of this court years ago, “It is better that the law should remain permanent so far as judicial action is concerned, although settled originally upon doubtful principles, than- that it should be subject to constant fluctuations according to the views and opinions which might be entertained by the court as constituted, at the time the same question might at some subsequent time arise.”

Regarding this question as virtually settled by previous opinions of this court, and the judgment of the court below conforming to them', the same must be *affirmed.*
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50459 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus HUGO RODRIGUEZ-MOTA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-685-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Hugo RodriguezMota raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATIONS

Exhibit 31.1



I, Gregory F. Kowal, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;



2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;



3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4.  The Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.  The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and



any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls; and



6.  The Company's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Date:   June 12, 2007



/s/Gregory F. Kowal

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

Gregory F. Kowal

Chief Executive Officer