alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John Napolitano, Appellant, v Carmine Agnello et al., Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 906]

In a consolidated action, inter alia, in the nature of a shareholder’s derivative action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of corporate assets, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Austin, J.), dated August 19, 2004, as amended April 26, 2005, and August 25, 2005, which upon a jury verdict in favor of, among others, the defendants Carmine Agnello, Steve Scala, and New York Shredding Corp., and against him, and upon the denial of his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial, is in favor of the defendants and against him, dismissing the consolidated action.

*682Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed, with costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence (see *Lolik v Big V Supermarkets,*86 NY2d 744, 746 [1995]; *Cassuto v City of New York,*23 AD3d 423 [2005]; *Harris v Marlow,*18 AD3d 608 [2005]). It is for the trier of fact to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and great deference is accorded to the fact-finder, who had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see *Cassuto v City of New York, supra).*In this case, a review of the evidence demonstrates that the jury could have credited the testimony of the defendants Carmine Agnello and Steve Scala and reasonably concluded that the plaintiff had unclean hands with respect to the derivative claim. Therefore, the verdict in favor of the defendants was not against the weight of the evidence.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Schmidt, J.E, Fisher, Dillon and Covello, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         189,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  369,283
<ALLOWANCES>                                   105,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               264,283
<PP&E>                                       3,648,725
<DEPRECIATION>                                 216,316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,409,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,651,281
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,500
<COMMON>                                        30,184
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,340,849
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,409,539
<SALES>                                      2,275,219
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,275,219
<CGS>                                        5,635,405
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,635,405
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,236
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             110,436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,479,888)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,479,888)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,479,888)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.22)
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Shelley Hollingsworth, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the report of Entech Solar, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperation of Entech Solar, Inc. 

Dated:March 24, 2011 

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certificationwill not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30102]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14893]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of NMC Global Corporation, as a 
Commercial Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of NMC Global Corporation, 
as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, NMC Global Corporation, 1100 Walnut St., Roselle, NJ 07203, 
has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and 
petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs 
purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 
151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory 
analyses and gauger services should request and receive written 
assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or 
gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the 
specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved 
to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by 
calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aac9c8da84c6cbc8c2dbeacec2d984cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c3a0a1b3edafa2a1abb283a7abb0eda4acb5">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed below for a 
complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. 
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of NMC Global Corporation, as 
commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on April 1, 2009. The 
next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for April 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Malana, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.

    Dated: June 18, 2009.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. E9-14893 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT (21) -- SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 
Allied Bankshares, Inc. -- (Registrant)
List of Subsidiaries
12-31-95
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               NAMES UNDER WHICH
                                                       STATE OF                 SUBSIDIARY DOES
              NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                     INCORPORATION                  BUSINESS
            ----------------------               ---------------------  --------------------------------
<S>                                              <C>                    <C>
Allied Bank of Georgia                           Georgia                Allied Bank of Georgia
Bank of Morgan County                            Georgia                Bank of Morgan County
Bank of Millen                                   Georgia                Bank of Millen
Georgia State Bank Building Corporation          Georgia                Georgia State Bank
                                                                          Building Corporation
Knox Mortgage Company                            Georgia                Knox Mortgage Company
</TABLE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00392-CV

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,

Appellant

v.

SEAN D. FLEMING,

Appellee

From the 378th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 88611

ORDER

A document entitled “Appellant’s Brief” was received from appellant, William 

M. Windsor and filed with the Court on June 25, 2015. Windsor’s brief in this matter is 

premature. Neither the clerk’s record nor the reporter’s record in this appeal have been 

filed. An appellant’s brief is not due until 30 days after the clerk’s record or the

reporter’s record is filed, whichever is later. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6. Because it was filed 

before the clerk’s record and reporter’s record were even prepared, the “brief” does not 
Windsor v. Fleming Page 2

contain the necessary references to the official record to be a proper brief. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.1. Accordingly, the “Appellant’s Brief” is stricken. 

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Brief stricken

Order issued and filed July 16, 2015
#### The Jacob Brandow. Schiaffino *v.*The Jacob Brandow.

*(District Court, E. D. South Carolina.*

December 28, 1887.)

Deposition—Interruption of Taking—Admissibility of Part Taken.

In an action in admiralty, while the deposition of libelant was being taken *de bene esse,*and before respondent had completed the cross-examination, the interpreter, whose services were necessary, refused to act further, and another could not be obtained before the witness left port. That part of the deposition that had been taken was signed by the witness, and produced upon the trial. *Held*inadmissible.

In Admiralty.

*J. P. K. Bryan,*for libelant.

*J. N. Nathans,*for respondent.

Simonton, J.

This case came on to be heard this day. It appears that the testimony of the master was being taken *de bene esse,*under order, before the clerk of this court, some months ago. During cross-examination, the interpreter, whose services had become necessary because of the ignorance of the English language on the part of the witness, lost his temper and left the clerk’s office. The cross-examination could not be resumed or continued from the impossibility of obtaining another interpreter. The vessel left port the next day, (Sunday,) and witness went in her. The testimony, as far as it was taken, was produced, signed by the master. It was objected to by Mr. Nathans, for respondent.

The fixed and invariable practice of courts of justice has been, and is, not to admit testimony when the opposite party has not had full opportunity of cross-examination. 1 Greenl. Ev. §§445, 554. The point is discussed in *Gass*v. Stinson, 3 Sum. 98. The general rule is stated as above, at least in the law courts, with the possible exception of the death of the witness before the cross-examination is concluded. A case was quoted in the opinion in which the testimony, taken before trial and interrupted in the cross-examination, was rejected, “because it was taken before issue joined, and might have been taken after.” No other reason was given. Judge Story, who delivers the opinion, says in substance that sometimes, in equity, (and the same practice, perhaps, should govern this court,) the testimony of a witness who has not been cross-examined is adriritted. But he confines this doctrine to cases in which the failure to cross-examine was the fault of the party having the right to do so, and to cases in which it became impossible to get at the witness again. In the present case the respondent was not in fault. He ivas hot bound to find an interpreter. The witness was examined *de bene esse*for his own convenience. He departed the countiy of his own accord, ai d so prevented further examination. He can be examined again, as he is within reach of a commission.

The testimony will not be admitted, and the case is continued.
DANIEL ALEXANDER CHRISTIAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3649

_____________________________/

Opinion filed December 21, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Clay County.

Don H. Lester, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
|    |                                                                               |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Black Hills Power, Inc.; |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
| Date:  | April 2, 2012 |   |
|   |   |   |
|   |   | /S/ ANTHONY S. CLEBERG |
|   |   | Anthony S. Cleberg |
|   |   | Executive Vice President and |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000012355
<NAME> THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                         122,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  678,200<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    828,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,798,000
<PP&E>                                         856,800<F2>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,148,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,404,200
<BONDS>                                      1,624,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    150,000
<COMMON>                                        43,900
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,329,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,148,500
<SALES>                                      3,459,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,459,600
<CGS>                                        2,209,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,234,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             111,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                104,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             68,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                  70,400
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   139,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.49<F3><F4>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45<F4>
<FN>
<F1>Represents net trade receivables.
<F2>Represents net property, plant, and equipment.
<F3>Represents basic earnings per share.
<F4>Restated to reflect the Corporation's adoption of Statement of
    Financial Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings Per Share".
</FN>


</TABLE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000817

17-JUN-2015

08:01 AM
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 13, 2015

No. 04-14-00785-CV

Mary Ann CASTRO,

Appellant

v.

Manuel CASTRO,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-15957

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

O R DER

The Appellant’s Motion for Alimony has this date been DENIED.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### In the Matter of Shade B., an Infant. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Denzil B., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

Submitted November 19, 2012;

decided January 15, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### In the Matter of Elbert Welch, Appellant, v Charles J. Hannigan, Former Niagara County Court Judge, et al., Respondents.

Submitted October 29, 2012;

decided January 8, 2013

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
#### William Anderson, Appellant, v New York City Department of Education, Respondent.

Submitted January 7, 2013;

decided February 19, 2013

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*20 NY3d 852 (2012)].
#### In the Matter of Government Employees Insurance Company, Appellant, v Richard Bartlett, Respondent.

[978 NYS2d 62]

In a proceeding pursuant to CFLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Speziale, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered March 7, 2012, which, after a hearing, denied the petition.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petition to permanently stay arbitration is granted.

*827On June 29, 2010, Richard Bartlett allegedly was injured when the vehicle he was operating in Manhattan was struck by another vehicle that fled the scene. On October 1, 2010, Bartlett sought uninsured motorist benefits under a policy of insurance issued by the petitioner. In a letter dated November 3, 2010, the petitioner disclaimed coverage on the ground that Bartlett, in violation of the supplementary uninsured motorist provision of the policy, failed to report the accident to the police or to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. In early December 2010, Bartlett made a demand for arbitration of his claim for uninsured motorist benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced this proceeding to permanently stay arbitration of Bartlett’s claim. The Supreme Court, after conducting a framed-issue hearing, denied the petition.

It is undisputed that Bartlett failed to report the alleged hit- and-run accident to the police or to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles within 24 hours of the accident or as soon as reasonably possible thereafter, as required under the policy. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the petitioner disclaimed coverage in a timely manner *(see Matter of Allcity Ins. Co. [Jimenez],*78 NY2d 1054, 1056 [1991]; *Hermitage Ins. Co. v Arm-ing, Inc.,*46 AD3d 620, 621 [2007]; *Matter of Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co. v Napolitano,*232 AD2d 561, 562 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the petition to permanently stay arbitration of Bartlett’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits *(see Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Baik,*94 AD3d 888, 889 [2012]; *Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Brown,*309 AD2d 749, 750 [2003]; *Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Snell,*286 AD2d 682, 683 [2001]; *Matter of Interboro Mut. Indem. Ins. Co. v Napolitano,*232 AD2d at 562; *Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v Genao,*210 AD2d 340 [1994]). Rivera, J.R, Dillon, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
---

EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF
 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Ronald W. Thiessen, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Quartz Mountain Resources Ltd. (the Company), hereby 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:

(i) the Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the
fiscal year ended July 31, 2012 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and

(ii) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: November 29, 2012

/s/ Ronald ThiessenBy: Ronald W. Thiessen
Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this 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.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---