alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(c)



AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO



TO



GRANTOR TRUST AGREEMENT



THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the eleventh day of April, 1995, by and between THE BANK OF NEW YORK COMPANY, INC., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York (hereinafter referred to as
the Company), and UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York (hereinafter referred to as the Trustee),



W  I  T  N  E  S  S  E  T  H  :



WHEREAS, the Company and the Trustee entered into a Grantor Trust Agreement dated as of November 16, 1993 (the Agreement); and



WHEREAS, Article TWELFTH of the Agreement provides that the Company may amend
the Agreement; and



WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the
Agreement;



NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Trustee agree
that the Agreement is amended as follows, effective as of April 11, 1995:



Item 3 of EXHIBIT I is hereby amended by adding the name Gerald L. Hassell immediately following the name Newton P.S. Merrill as it appears in the column entitled Individual and the
date April 11, 1995 immediately following the date April 25, 1994 as it appears in the column entitled Date of Agreement.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed in their respective names by their duly authorized officers under their
corporate seals as of the day and year first above written.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                  
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------
|ATTEST:              |  |  |  | THE BANK OF NEW YORK COMPANY, INC.               
|                     |  | 
|/s/    SUE J. SIEBEL |  |  |  | /s/    PHEBE C. MILLER                           
|                     |  |  |  |                                                  
|                     |  |  |  | Phebe C. Miller Chief Legal Officer and Secretary



|                             |  |  |  |                                         |  |                        |  |                               
|---------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|ATTEST:                      |  |  |  | UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK
|                             |  |  | 
|/s/    GERARD STAFFORD-SMITH |  |  |  | By:                                     |  | /s/    MARTHA C. DOLAN
|                             |  |  |  |                                         |  |                       
|                             |  |  |  |                                         |  |                        |  | Martha C. Dolan Vice President



-1-
---

Exhibit 32.1

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. 10 to Form 10Q/A for the quarter
ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.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/ Ronald A.
DurandoRonald A. Durando Chief Executive Officer

April 6, 2011

---
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 1 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 2 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 3 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 4 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 5 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 6 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 7 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 8 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 9 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 10 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 11 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 12 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 13 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 14 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 15 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 16 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 17 of 18
Case 5:05-cv-00328-F Document 81-2 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 18 of 18
#### Richard H. Kilmer et al., Appellants, v George Miller et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 30, 2012;

decided October 18, 2012

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.
No. 4907.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### CRESCENT CITY STOCKYARDS AND SLAUGHTER HOUSE CO., LTD. vs. GENERAL CONTRACTING COMPANY.

Estopinal and Collins for plaintiff and appellee.

Geo. W. Flynn for defendant and appellant.

GODCHAUX, J.

On the night of May 28th, 1908, plaintiff’s mule, one of a team drawing a delivery wagon, was killed by falling into an open trench excavated across the public highway by defendant under contract with the City of New Orleans, and this suit for the recovery of $248.00, representing the value of the mule and harness destroyed, etc., is based upon the alleged negligence of defendant in failing to place a red light or barricade at the excavation as a danger warning to the users of the street.

The testimony is an irreconciliable conflict and the determination of this disputed fact depends wholly upon whether the witnesses of plaintiff or of defendant are to be believed. The former’s witnesses, consisting chiefly of disinterested persons, deny that there were any red lights or barricades; and the latter’s, consisting almost wholly of its employees, affirm that these lights existed. The lower Court believed the disinterested witnesses in preference to defendant’s servants and employees and found for the plaintiff. Our examination of the record leads us to the same conclusion, and as the amount of *300file award in plaintiff’s favor is not questioned, fee judgment of the lower Court must be affirmed.

April 4, 1910.

Rehearing refused April 18, 1910.

Judgment affirmed,
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Christi Beth Perrin, Appellant

No. 06-14-00232-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 

of Collin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 004-

82924-2014). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Christi Beth Perrin, has adequately indicated her inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 14, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Graham Reid, Appellant.

Submitted July 8, 2013;

decided August 22, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., The Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.

Judge Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, David Flake, hereby certify that:1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB for Basic Earth Science Systems, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer and its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s last quarter of thecurrent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the Audit Committee of the small business issuer’s Board of Directors: (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrols over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.   EXECUTED this 28thday of June, 2007.     /s/ David Flake      David Flake  Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report/A of HIGH END VENTURES, INC., a Colorado corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Thomas Forzani, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Donald Thomson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C.  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 result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Thomas Forzani



Thomas Forzani, Chief Executive Officer



August 16, 2006





/s/ Donald Thompson



Donald Thompson, Secretary/Treasurer and Principal Accounting Officer



August 16, 2006



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to HIGH END VENTURES, INC. and will be retained by HIGH END VENTURES, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





1
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Services; Lyonel F. Paul, M.D., as Assignee of Agbai, Judy, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>GEICO Ins. Co., Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for appellant.Rivkin Radler, LLP (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Richard J. Montelione, J.), entered February 16, 2017. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had failed to appear for duly scheduled examinations under oath (EUOs). </p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's contentions, the proof submitted by defendant in support of its motion was sufficient to give rise to a presumption that the denial of claim form had been timely mailed (<a href="../2008/2008_04072.htm" target="_blank"><i>see St. Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. Ins. Co.</i>, 50 AD3d 1123</a> [2008]) and to demonstrate that plaintiff had failed to appear for the EUOs (<a href="../2006/2006_09604.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Stephen Fogel Psychological, P.C. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.</i>, 35 AD3d 720</a> [2006]). Furthermore, defendant was not required to set forth objective reasons for requesting EUOs in order to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, as an insurer need only demonstrate "as a matter of law that it twice duly demanded an [EUO] from the [provider] . . . that the [provider] twice failed to appear, and that the [insurer] issued a timely denial of the claim[]" (<a href="../2014/2014_00092.htm" target="_blank"><i>Interboro Ins. Co. v Clennon</i>, 113 AD3d 596</a>, 597 [2014]; <a href="../2017/2017_50208.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Parisien v Metlife Auto &amp; Home</i>, 54 Misc 3d 143</a>[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50208[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2017]; <a href="../2015/2015_51653.htm" target="_blank"><i>Palafox PT, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.</i>, 49 Misc 3d 144</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51653[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2015]). Consequently, plaintiff has not provided any basis to <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>disturb the Civil Court's order.</p><p>Accordingly, the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: July 12, 2019<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### State v. Cummings

Case below: 174 N.C. App. 772

No. 014P06

Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-188)

Denied 12/19/06
**Loan Agreement**

 

This Loan Agreement (the “Agreement”) was executed on August 1, 2008, by and between Mr. Shuangxi Zhao (the Lender, or “Party A”) and Hebei Baoding Orient Paper Milling Co., Ltd (the Borrower, or “Party B”), whereas Mr. Shuangxi Zhao agree to lend RMB6,000,000 yuan (RMB Six Million Yuan) to Hebei Baoding Orient Paper Milling Co., Ltd for a period of three years. Both parties further agree on the following terms: 

 

| 1. | Total Amount of Loan. Mr. Shuangxi Zhao lend RMB6,000,000 yuan (RMB Six Million Yuan) to Hebei Baoding Orient Paper Milling Co., Ltd. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Usage of Loan. This loan can only be used in the production and operation of the company, such as purchasing raw material and equipment. It can’t be used in any other respects of the company. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 3. | The Repayment Period. The repayment for this loan is for three years and maturity on July 31, 2011, and bear an interest rate equal to which stipulated in the People’s Bank of China. The interest shall be settled at the end of each year, and repayment shall be made on maturity date. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 4. | Liabilities. During the performance of this Agreement, any event of default by either party, which result in an adverse effect on the other party, shall assume corresponding liabilities according to the Contract Law. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 5. | Effectiveness. This Agreement is executed in two copies when the signatures or seals are made by both parties, one of which held by Party A, and the other held by Party B, are equally authentic. Any other matters not expressly stated herein, will be resolved through negotiation. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Party A: Mr. Shuangxi Zhao 

/s/ Shuangxi Zhao

August 1, 2008

 

Party B: Hebei Baoding Orient Paper Milling Co., Ltd 

Seal

August 1, 2008

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

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.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 22, 2012

h1015 

# Order

October 22, 2012

144940(48)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 144940

COA: 299459

Saginaw CC: 09

- 032310

- FH

CHARLES LEE BROWN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s July 24, 2012

order is considered, and i t is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
____________________________________________________EXHIBIT 99.1

     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 on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2002 of Blue Ridge Real Estate  Company and Big Boulder  Corporation
(together  , the  "Registrants")  as filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  Patrick M.  Flynn,  Chief
Executive  Officer and  President of the  Registrants,  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:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 (15  U.S.C.  Section  78m(a)  or
Section 78o(d); and

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



     /s/ PATRICK M. FLYNN

     Patrick M. Flynn
     Chief Executive Officer and President
     January 29, 2003
#### In the Matter of Leah Jacobowitz, Petitioner, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[854 NYS2d 341]

The challenged determination, which denied petitioner’s grievance for failure to demonstrate her continuous occupancy until the previous tenants of record (her parents) vacated their *279leasehold, was supported by substantial evidence *(300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176 [1978]) and is rationally based *(Matter of Jennings v New York State Off. of Mental Health,*90 NY2d 227, 239-240 [1997]). Although petitioner was a member of the original tenant family, there are no affidavits of income or family composition, as required by New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) policy and governing regulation *(see*24 CFR 960.257 [a]), for the years 2000-2003, listing her as an occupant of these premises. Petitioner’s documentary evidence attested only to at best sporadic occupancy during the period in question. The testimony by NYCHA. officials working at the public housing development formerly occupied by petitioner and her family, credited by the hearing officer, strongly indicated that the family vacated the premises before surrendering their leasehold. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
96-522.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. Trumbo.

IT IS ORDERED by this court, *sua sponte,*effective May 7, 1997, that Kimberlee-Joy Trumbo, Attorney Registration No. 0039265, last known address in Cleveland, Ohio, is found in contempt for failure to comply with this court’s order of August 21,1996, to wit: failure to surrender her Certificate of Admission and attorney registration card, and failure to file an affidavit of compliance on or before September 20,1996.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<CIK>                               0000851724
<NAME>                              GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PTSP II-G

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                   427,496
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            558,635
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         986,131
<PP&E>                                23,730,405
<DEPRECIATION>                        19,644,034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         5,174,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     61,622
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                             5,055,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           5,174,457
<SALES>                                1,704,587
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,714,281
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          1,161,744
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          552,537
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      552,537
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             552,537
<EPS-BASIC>                               1.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


</TABLE>