alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128874(67) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

RENELLE FOREMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 128874 

 COA: 250412 

Oakland CC: 2002-037507-CZ 

DENNIS WALTER FOREMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of May 

26, 2006 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

MARKMAN, J., would grant the motion for reconsideration and grant defendant’s 

application for the reasons set forth in Foreman v Foreman, 475 Mich 863, 864 (2006). 

p0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

GMR Research and Technology, Inc. 

Under Contract No. N00014-05-C-1054 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 59132 

Rosario Mario F. Rizzo, Esq. 

Concord, MA 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Cara A. Wulf, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Boston, MA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute which is the subject of the appeal having been settled, the appeal is 

hereby dismissed with prejudice subject to reinstatement only in the event the settlement 

is not consummated. Any request to reinstate the subject appeal must be filed within 90 

days of the date of this Order. 

Dated: 13 July 2015 

dministrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 59132, Appeal ofGMR Research 

and Technology, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhase Technologies,
Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Amendment No. 6 to Form 10Q/A for the quarter
ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Martin S Smiley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
Section 1350), that to his 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/ Martin S.
SmileyMartin S .Smiley Chief Financial Officer

January 11, 2011

---
EX-10.15



 Exhibit 10.15 
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
  

					
	$48,000.00	 	Denver, Colorado	 	Date: June 28, 2013

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Arête Industries, Inc. (“Maker”) promises to pay to the order of
Burlingame Equity Investors II, L.P., whose address is One Montgomery Street, 33rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, the sum of $48,000.00, with interest at the rate of 7% percent per annum, payable as follows: Interest payable on each of the 90th, 180th, 270th and 360th day hereafter. All unpaid interest and principal shall be due 390 days after the date hereof with no prepayment
penalty for early payment of principal. 
 Covenant: Until this Note is paid in full, Maker shall not incur any indebtedness with a maturity of
greater than 90 days other than a substitute facility for the Maker’s $1,000,000 of principal due to Apex Financial Services Corp. evidenced by a promissory note. The Holder understands and agrees that the Maker’s obligations to pay the
aforesaid indebtedness and any substitutions and extensions therefore, along with the Maker’s existing indebtedness to Pikerni, LLC in the principal amount of $250,000 dated April, 2013 and the Maker’s existing indebtedness to Fairfield
Management Group, LLC dated April, 2013 in the principal amount of $100,000 shall be senior in payment and security to this Note. 
 IT IS
AGREED that if this Note is not paid when due or declared due hereunder, or the Maker breaches the foregoing covenant, the entire principal and accrued interest thereon shall draw interest at the rate of 12% percent per annum, and that failure to
make any payment of principal or interest when due or a breach by Maker of the foregoing covenant shall cause the entire Note to become due at once, or the interest to be counted as principal, at the option of the holder of this Note. Maker waives
presentment for payment, protest, notice of non-payment and of protest of this Note, and if this Note or interest thereon is not paid when due, or suit is brought for collection of this Note after a breach hereof, agrees to pay all reasonable costs
of collection, including reasonable fees of attorneys. 
  

			
	Arête Industries, Inc. (“Maker”)
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Nicholas L. Scheidt

	Nicholas L. Scheidt, President
	
	Due July 23, 2014
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION**

I, David K. Hill, the Principal Executive Officer ofKimball Hill, Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, herebycertify that based on my knowledge the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2007, filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission: (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the informationcontained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                            |   | /s/ DAVID K. HILL                                |
|----------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                       |   | David K. Hill,                                   |
|                       |   | *Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director* |
|                       |   | * *                                         |
| Date: August 14, 2007 |   | * *                                         |

 

 

----
[881 NYS2d 795]

#### Jose Cabrera et al., Appellants, v Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

May 19, 2009

*72APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Subin Associates, L.L.P.,*New York City *(<Jeremy L. Greenstein*of counsel), for appellants. *Mead, Hecht, Conklin & Gallagher, LLP,*Mamaroneck *(Elizabeth M. Hecht*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered November 14, 2007, reversed, with $10 costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated.

In this action to recover uninsured motorist benefits arising out of a vehicular accident which occurred in Bronx County, defendant moved for, and was granted, summary dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the forum selection clause in the governing automobile insurance policy mandated the removal of the action to Connecticut. While the first paragraph of the policy’s forum selection clause provides that “[s]ubject to the following two paragraphs . . . any and all lawsuits in any way related to this policy, shall be brought . . . only in a state or federal court located in Connecticut,” the second paragraph states that if a “covered auto accident . . . happens outside Connecticut, lawsuits regarding that covered auto accident . . . may also be brought in the judicial district where that . . . covered auto accident. . . happened.” When the whole clause is read in context, it is clear that plaintiffs were entitled to bring suit in the judicial district where the accident occurred. Accordingly, dismissal of the action, insofar as it rested on the policy’s forum selection clause, was improper.

Upon our review of the record (see *Ghose v CNA Reins. Co. Ltd.,*43 AD3d 656, 660 [2007]), we find that defendant *73failed to “carry [its] ‘heavy’ burden of challenging plaintiffs’ [choice] of forum” *(Hudson Ins. Co. v Oppenheim,*35 AD3d 168, 168-169 [2006]). Although defendant’s insured is a Connecticut resident, there is a substantial nexus to this jurisdiction, it being uncontroverted that plaintiffs are all residents of New York *(see Sweeney v Hertz Corp.,*250 AD2d 385 [1998]; *see also Hudson Ins. Co. v Oppenheim,*35 AD3d 168 [2006]), and that the accident occurred in New York *(see Hoogenboom v Gilmore,*278 AD2d 895 [2000]). Nor has defendant shown any potential hardship in defending the action in New York. While the choice-of-law issues presented by this litigation have not yet been adjudicated, New York courts are capable of applying Connecticut law should that necessity arise *(see Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v Honeywell Intl. Inc.,*48 AD3d 225, 226 [2008]; *Continental Ins. Co. v Garlock Sealing Tech., LLC,*23 AD3d 287 [2005]).

McKeon, EJ., Schoenfeld and Heitler, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Rodriguez, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 82]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered February 25, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The record fails to support defendant’s assertion that the court should be deemed to have denied his motion for a *Mapp*hearing by failing to specifically grant it. On the contrary, the record supports the conclusion that the motion court in fact *402granted that request, and that the failure of its decision and order to reflect this was merely a clerical error regarding the nomenclature of the hearings granted. Furthermore, to the extent that the order required clarification with respect to precisely what hearings had been granted, it was incumbent upon defendant to call the problem to the court’s attention *(cf. People v Davis,*248 AD2d 281 [1998], *lv denied*91 NY2d 1006 [1998]). In any event, the record does not establish that the court issued an order finally denying defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence, and defendant’s guilty plea thus waived the issue (CPL 710.70 [2]; *People v Fernandez,*67 NY2d 686, 688 [1986]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-86494) of American
Locker Group Incorporated's 1999 Stock Incentive Plan of our report dated August 30, 2007 (which reports an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph as a result of our
inability to review the selected quarterly financial data), with respect to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of American Locker Group Incorporated included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2006.

/s/
Travis, Wolff & Company, LLP

Dallas,
Texas
September 4, 2007

---



QuickLinks
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

###### Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), with authority to redelegate, the authorities vested in the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 3990 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 280g-3), as amended hereafter, insofar as these authorities pertain to the functions assigned to SAMHSA.

These authorities shall be exercised under the Department's Policy on regulations and the existing delegation of authority to approve and issue regulations.

In addition, I have affirmed and ratified any actions taken by the SAMHSA Administrator or by any other SAMHSA officials, which, in effect, involved the exercise of this authority prior to the effective date of this delegation.

This delegation is effective upon date of signature.

Dated: June 5, 2009.

Kathleen Sebelius,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-14219 Filed 6-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-M
#### Ronald Alleva, Plaintiff, v United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Defendants. Pitt Investigations, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Submitted March 25, 2013;

decided April 30, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
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 Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel. Attention Trajectories from 5 to 7 Years.                    

*Date:*                         June 25, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 3 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard Room 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Carla T. Walls, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892. (301) 435-6898.                         *wallsc@mail.nih.gov.*

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 12, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-14497 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
97-464.

#### Office v. Office.

Montgomery App. No. 15298. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and cross-appeal and claimed appeal of right. It appears from the records of this court that appellee/cross-appellant has not filed a combined memorandum in support of the cross-appeal and in response to appellant/cross-appellee’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due April 2, 1997, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court, and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the cross-appeal of Lynn E. Office be, and hereby is, dismissed.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We have issued our reports dated March 30, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements in the Annual Report of Spherix Incorporated on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of Spherix Incorporated on Form S-8 (File No. 333-66053 effective October 23, 1998), on Forms S-3 (File No. 333-44973 effective March 23, 1998, 333-79593 effective May 28, 1999, 333-32504 effective April 19, 2000, 333-116422 effective June 14, 2004 and 333-126930 effective August 25, 2009), on Form S-2 (File No. 333-126930 effective October 4, 2005) and on Form S-1 (File No. 333-167963 effective on October 6, 2010).

 

 

Baltimore, Maryland

March 30, 2010

 

1

----
EXHIBIT 32(b)



Certification



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of The Bank of New York Company, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: March 9, 2004



/s/    BRUCE VAN SAUNName: Bruce Van Saun Title: Chief Financial Officer




The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



-1-
AUG 1 6 2001 

Mr. Frank Bari 

Attorney at Law 

305 Broadway, Suite 602 

New York, NY 10007 

RE: Game Classification Request-"Hand Rolle" 

Dear Mr. Bari: 

We are in receipt of your letter dated May 18, 2001, in which you request that the National 

Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) approve the dice game invented by your client called "Hand 

Rolle." 

The NIGC does not approve games for play in casinos. Rather, the Office of the General 

Counsel issues advisory opinions whether games are Class I1 or Class I11 under the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act. 

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) governs gaming on Indian lands. IGRA defines 

mJ Class I1 gaming in relevant part to include: 

(i) the game of chance commonly known as bingo (whether or not electronic, 

computer, or other technologic aids are used in connection therewith)-- 

(I) which is played for prizes, including monetary prizes, 

with cards bearing numbers or other designations, 

(11) in which the holder of the card covers such numbers or 

designations when objects, similarly numbered or 

designated, are drawn or electronically determined, and 

(111) in which the game is won by the first person 

covering a previously designated arrangement of numbers 

or designations on such cards, including (if played in the 

same location) pull-tabs, lotto, punch boards, tip jars, 

instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo[.] 

25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(A)(i). 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW, Sulte 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 W.NlGC.GOV 

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento. CA; Phoenix. AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK 
Mr. Frank Bari - Page2of2 

It also includes certain non-banked card games. 25 U.S.C. 5 2703(7)(ii). All other forms of 

gambling --except Class I gaming which consists of social games for prizes of minimal value and 

gaming by individuals in connection with tribal ceremonies-- are considered Class 111 games and 

may be lawfully played only pursuant to a Tribal-State compact. 25 U.S.C. $5 2703(8) and 

271 O(d)(l)(C). 

The game that your materials describe is similar to the table game of craps. It is played on a 

table specially designed for the game and utilizes a 12-sided die. The layout of the table is 

similar to a craps table in that the player bets by placing money value chips in a certain position 

on the table indicating his bet. The outcome of each game is determined by a player's roll of the 

die. According to the procedures manual accompanying the game description, the game requires 

a bankroll of $58,200.00 in order to pay winners. As such, "Hand Rolle" is a Class I11 game 

under IGRA and may only be operated pursuant to an approved compact between a state and a 

tribe. 

Sincerely, 

Penny J. Coleman 

Deputy General Counsel
Exhibit 32.1  Certification  Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned hereby certifies that:  (1) I have reviewed the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P. (the "Report") to which this statement is an Exhibit;  (2) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (3) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.  By:Inland Real Estate Investment CorporationGeneral PartnerBy:/s/ Brenda G. GujralName:Brenda G. GujralTitle:President of the General Partner andprincipal executive officer of Inland Land Appreciation Fund, L.P.Date:November 6, 2008