alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[922 NE2d 870, 895 NYS2d 284]

#### Jemrock Realty Co., LLC, Respondent, v Jay Krugman, Appellant.

Decided January 14, 2010

*925APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Barry J. Yellin,*New York City, for appellant.

*Abramson Law Group, PLLC,*New York City *(Jeffrey A. Bod-off*of counsel), for respondent.

*Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General,*New York City *(Monica Wagner*of counsel), for New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, amicus curiae.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, the case remitted to that court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum, and the certified question answered in the negative.

*926This case turns on the factual issue of whether the landlord’s expenditures for “improvements” were at least equal to the amount (approximately $30,000) necessary to bring the legal rent above the luxury decontrol threshold. Contrary to the contentions of both parties, and to the majority and dissenting opinions at the Appellate Division, the resolution of that issue is not governed by any inflexible rule either that a landlord is always required, or that it is never required, to submit an item-by-item breakdown, showing an allocation between improvements and repairs, where the landlord has engaged in extensive renovation work. The question is one to be resolved by the fact-finder in the same manner as other issues, based on the persuasive force of the evidence submitted by the parties.

Here, the Appellate Term (18 Misc 3d 15 [2007]), modifying the contrary decision of Civil Court, found that the landlord had met its burden of showing that its expenditures on improvements exceeded the requisite amount. The Appellate Division erroneously decided this question as a matter of law, and did not exercise its power to review the facts. We remit to the Appellate Division so that it may do so.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Grapfeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.
#### BLAKE v. CLYDE PORCELAIN STEEL CORPORATION.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Aug. 24, 1944.

Harry Sena, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Sydney D. Robins, of New York City, for defendants.

KNOX, District Judge.

This is a motion to amend the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 15(a), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c.

*769The original complaint was framed to the issue of moneys due but not paid to the plaintiff under a contract of employment. The plaintiff, in 1942, entered into a contract with defendants to use his abilities to bring them customers from a specified territory in the northeastern portion of the United States. His pay was to be a commission of three percent of the amount of contracts or orders placed by concerns solicited by plaintiff. Most of the corporations so placing orders were war plants, and it seems that some of such orders were cancelled by governmental action.

Plaintiff is now moving to amend his complaint to state a cause of action in quantum meruit, and thus enable him to receive compensation for such work as proved of value to defendants. The full terms of the contract are not now before the Court and it may be that they are such as to permit plaintiff to recover on a quantum meruit basis.

Rule IS (a) states that “leave” to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires”, and if plaintiff has a valid cause of action upon any theory, he should be afforded opportunity to assert it.

Motion granted.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10644 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. VINCENT JOHN BAZEMORE, JR. , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:07

- CR

- 312

- 1

Before JONES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Vincent John Bazemore, Jr., federal prisoner # 37160

- 177, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s
denial of his motion for specific performanc e, or alternatively, to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion filed in the district court challenged Bazemore’s 2009 conviction for securities fraud. As in the district court, Bazemore argues on appeal that the Government b reached the proffer agreement en tered into

* 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 23, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10644 Document: 00512480895 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2013No. 13

- 10644

during the plea negotiation process. He contends that he is entitled to specific performance of the agreement o r to withdraw his guilty plea. By moving for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, Bazemore is challenging the district court’s certificati on that his appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue and is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Bazemore’s motion for specific enforcement , or alternatively to withdraw his guilty plea, was unauthorized because t he relief he sought was not available under any federal rul e or statute providing for post conviction relief. See United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Therefore, his appeal is “from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion.” See Early , 27 F.3d at 142. Bazemore’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219

- 20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, his request for leave to proceed IFP is denied, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous

. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24 ; 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

2 Case: 13-10644 Document: 00512480895 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2013
Exhibit 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
Chief Financial Officer of PSC, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that
to the undersigned's knowledge:

1)       the Company's 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 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 Company's 10-Q for the quarter ended
         June 30, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
         condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                        /s/ Paul M. Brown
                                        ------------------
                                         Paul M. Brown
                                         VP of Finance , Chief Financial Officer


Dated: August 19, 2002
Exhibit 32.02
                                  -------------


                            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  Quarterly  Report  of BSD  Medical  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter ending May 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Dennis
E. Bradley,  principal 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, 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.





/s/Dennis E. Bradley
--------------------
Dennis E. Bradley
Principal Financial Officer
July 15, 2004

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
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Letterhead of KPMG]

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm              Exhibit 34.1.4

 

The Board of Directors

Citibank, N.A.:

 

We have examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that Citibank, N.A. (the Custodian) complied with servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(ii) set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB in connection with the servicing of residential mortgage loans (other than loans held for its own portfolio) for which the Custodian performs a particular servicing function pursuant to a custodial agreement covering transactions that are serviced on the Citilink, Mortgageserv, and Fidelity servicing platforms (the Platform), as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007. Management is responsible for the Custodian’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessmentabout the Custodian’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Custodian’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Custodian processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Custodian during the period covered by this report. Our procedureswere not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Custodian during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Custodian’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Custodian complied with certain servicing criteria outlined in Exhibit A in the accompanying Management Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2007 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

St. Louis, Missouri

February 22, 2008
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 26, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-273

Lower Tribunal No. 21-6474

________________

Noham Kilinsky,

Appellant,

vs.

Bank Leumi Le-Israel, Ltd,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William 

Thomas, Judge.

Law Offices of David S. Cohen, LC, and Lee N. Bernbaum and David 

S. Cohen (Orlando), for appellant.

The Lieberman Law Firm, P.A., and Mendy Lieberman, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and MILLER, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 
2

Affirmed. See § 55.606(1)(b)(3), Fla. Stat. (2022) (providing in 

pertinent part: “The out-of-country foreign judgment shall not be refused 

recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction if . . . [t]he defendant, prior to the 

commencement of the proceedings, had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction 

of the foreign court with respect to the subject matter involved. . .”); Kramer 

v. von Mitschke-Collande, 5 So. 3d 689, 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (once a 

judgment creditor presents a foreign judgment which on its face awards a 

monetary sum certain and is final, conclusive, and capable of enforcement, 

the burden shifts to the judgment debtor to specify and establish a ground 

for non-recognition of that foreign judgment). See also Vuillermin v. 

Mitsubishi Elec. Europe BV, 233 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding a 

defendant “may not avoid the foreign judgment based on lack of personal 

service [where] he failed to raise the issue initially in the foreign court of 

competent jurisdiction”).
Exhibit 21

                     List of Subsidiaries of the Registrant

                        SOUTHWESTERN LIFE HOLDINGS, INC.
                        INSURANCE HOLDING COMPANY SYSTEM
                             As of December 31, 2000


SOUTHWESTERN LIFE HOLDINGS, INC. (Delaware)
         KB Management, L.L.C. (New York)
         Penn La Franco Corporation (BritishVirgin Islands)
         SW Houston Hotel, Ltd. (Delaware)
         ROP Financial Group, Inc. (Delaware)
                  ROP, Inc. (Delaware)
         Marketing One Financial Corporation (Delaware)
                  Premier One, Inc. (North Carolina)
                  Marketing One Investment Services Corporation (Texas)
                  Marketing One of Alabama, Inc. (Alabama)
                  Tax Savers Agency, Inc. (Ohio)
         SWFC Nevada, Inc. (Delaware)
                  Southwestern Financial Services Corporation (Delaware)
                           BGFRTS, L.C. (Texas) *
                  Pacific Life and Accident Insurance Company (Texas)
                           Southwestern Life Insurance Company (Texas)
                                    ICH Funding Corp. (Delaware)
                                    The Network Agency, Inc. (Ohio) *
                                    GSSW, L.P. (Delaware) *
                                          GSSW-REO Ownership Corporation (Texas)
                                    Quail Creek Recreation, Inc. (Arizona)
                                    Saddlecreek Enterprises, L.L.C. (Texas)
                                          Quail Creek Homes, Inc. (Delaware)
                                          Alliance Resources, Inc. (Delaware)

* Ownership information on companies not 100% wholly owned by immediate parent:

1.   BGFRTS, L.C. - 50% owned by Southwestern Financial Services Corporation and
     50% owned by Southwestern Life Insurance Company.

2.   The  Network  Agency,  Inc. - 100% of the issued  and  outstanding  Class A
     (voting)  stock is owned by Rodney L.  Meyers  and 100% of the  issued  and
     outstanding  Class B  (non-voting)  stock  is owned  by  Southwestern  Life
     Insurance Company.

3.   GSSW, L.P. - 99% owned by Southwestern  Life Insurance Company and 1% owned
     by BGFRTS, L.P.
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 Phoenix Medical Software, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in
the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of the Company.
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Dated:
 February 27, 2014



/s/
P. Morgan McCune

Name:
P. Morgan McCune

Title: Chief
Executive Officer







Dated:
 February 27, 2014

/s/
P. Morgan McCune

Name:
P. Morgan McCune

Title: Chief
Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           66710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 66710
<PP&E>                                            6514
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   73224
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3794
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        137000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (67570)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     73224
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3995
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 12408
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (8413)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (8413)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8413)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
S. 655

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and six

An Act

To amend the Public Health Service Act with respect to the National Foundation

for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE

CONTROL AND PREVENTION; ACCEPTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SERVICES; FEDERAL FUNDING.

(a) AUTHORITY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF VOLUNTARY SERVICES;

STRIKING TWO-YEAR LIMIT PER INDIVIDUAL.—Section 399G(h)(2)(A)

of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280e–11(h)(2)(A)) is

amended by striking the second sentence and inserting the following: ‘‘In the case of an individual, such Director may accept

the services provided under the preceding sentence by the individual

until such time as the private funding for such individual ends.’’.

(b) REPORTS.—Section 399G(h)(7) of the Public Health Service

Act (42 U.S.C. 280e–11(h)(7)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘, including an

accounting of the use of amounts provided for under subsection

(i)’’ before the period at the end of the second sentence; and

(2) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following:

‘‘(C) The Foundation shall make copies of each report

submitted under subparagraph (A) available—

‘‘(i) for public inspection, and shall upon request

provide a copy of the report to any individual for a

charge not to exceed the cost of providing the copy;

and

‘‘(ii) to the appropriate committees of Congress.’’.

(c) FEDERAL FUNDING.—Section 399G(i) of the Public Health

Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280e–11(i)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (2)—

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘$500,000’’, and

inserting ‘‘$1,250,000’’; and

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘not more than

$500,000’’ and inserting ‘‘not less than $500,000, and not

more than $1,250,000’’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(4) SUPPORT SERVICES.—The Director of the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention may provide facilities, utilities,

and support services to the Foundation if it is determined
S. 655—2

by the Director to be advantageous to the programs of such

Centers.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Amendment to Master Loan Agreement , dated September 3, 1999



 Exhibit 10.35 
  
 No. CF101A 
  
 AMENDMENT 
  
 THIS AMENDMENT is entered into as of September 3, 1999, between CoBANK, ACB (“CoBank”) and PETROUS, L.L.C., Des Moines,
Iowa, (the “Company”). 
  
 BACKGROUND

  
 CoBank and the Company are parties to a Master Loan
Agreement dated September 1, 1999, (such agreement, as previously amended, is hereinafter referred to as the “MLA”). CoBank and the Company now desire to amend the MLA. For that reason, and for valuable consideration (the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged), CoBank and the Company agree as follows: 
  
 1. Section 9 (J) of the MLA is hereby amended and restated to read as follows: 
  
 (J) Counterparty Risk. Company will not exceed total counterparty risk of $50 million. 
  
 2. Section 10 (A) of the MLA is hereby amended and restated to read as follows: 

 
 (A) The Company will have at the end of each quarter (1) an excess
of current assets over current liabilities of not less than $1.4 million, and (2) an excess of total assets over total liabilities of not less than $1.4 million (both as determined in accordance with GAAP consistently applied). 
  
 3. Except as set forth in this amendment, the MLA shall continue in full force and effect as
written. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused
this amendment to be executed. by their duly authorized officers as of the date shown above. 
  

									
	CoBANK, ACB	 	 	 	PETROUS, L.L.C.
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Casey Garter
	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Robert V. Johnson

	 Title:
	 	 Vice President
	 	 	 	 Title:
	 	 Treasurer