alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marcia Pinsker, Respondent, v George Pinsker, Appellant.

— In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 20, 1976, after a nonjury trial, as awarded alimony, child support and a counsel fee. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Defendant’s main contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in directing a "grossly excessive” award of alimony, child support and a counsel fee. He argues that the trial court erroneously concluded, as a matter of fact, that he owned a substantial interest of the Trudeb Theatre Corporation. We agree with the trial court that such a factual determination was warranted. Not only did the defendant represent on numerous occasions that he was the "owner” of corporate stock worth at least $10,000, the corporate records indicate that he is the registered owner of 50 shares of stock, *or*25% of all shares which the corporation is authorized to issue. Furthermore, the record supports a finding that the individual alleged by defendant to be the true "owner” of the corporation, i.e., his father, Irving Pinsker, never received any cash, salary or stock certificates from the corporation. Indeed, the defendant’s father, who resides in Florida six to seven months of the year, apparently had no connection with the corporation after he organized and initially funded it in 1965. Under these circumstances, the trial court was justified in believing that the "firing” of the defendant by his father, coincidentally one month before the foreseeable commencement of this divorce action, after the defendant, who regularly netted $400 per week in salary, had worked at the theatre for 11 years, was merely staged by the defendant to adversely affect the matrimonial award ultimately to be awarded to the plaintiff. We find that the trial court’s award of a counsel fee was reasonable (see *Schwartz v Schwartz,*50 AD2d 877). Hopkins, J. P., Shapiro, Hawkins and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
§ 10.3 Applicability. ( a ) This part prescribes general rulemaking procedures for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of rules in which participation by interested persons is required by 5 U.S.C. or by Department policy.
( b ) The authority to issue rules, delegated by the Secretary, may not be redelegated unless expressly permitted.
( c ) This part is not applicable to a determination by HUD under 24 CFR part 966 (public housing) or 24 CFR part 950 (Indian housing) that the law of a jurisdiction requires that, prior to eviction, a tenant be given a hearing in court which provides the basic elements of due process (“due process determination”).
[44 FR 1606, Jan. 5, 1979, as amended at 61 FR 13273, Mar. 26, 1996]
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXPERT DECLARATIONS

CASE NOS. C08-03129 MMC & C08-04234 MMC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Matthew B. Lehr (Bar No. 213139) 

Suong T. Nguyen (Bar No. 237557) 

David J. Lisson (Bar No. 250994) 

Chung G. Suh (Bar No. 244889) 

Jeremy Brodsky (Bar No. 257674) 

DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 

1600 El Camino Real 

Menlo Park, California 94025 

Telephone: (650) 752-2000 

Facsimile: (650) 752-2111 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Tyco Healthcare Group LP d/b/a 

VNUS Medical Technologies 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP d/b/a 

VNUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, 

Plaintiff,

v.

BIOLITEC, INC., DORNIER MEDTECH 

AMERICA, INC., and NEW STAR LASERS, 

INC. d/b/a COOLTOUCH, INC., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

LEAD CASE NO. C08-03129 MMC 

CASE NO. C08-03129 MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE THE DECLARATIONS OF DR. 

ROBERT T. ANDREWS, DR. WARREN 

S. GRUNDFEST, AND TERRY A. 

FULLER IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF 

ITS OPPOSITIONS TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

TYCO HEALTHCARE GROUP LP d/b/a 

VNUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TOTAL VEIN SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a 

TOTAL VEIN SYSTEMS,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C08-04234 MMC 

(consolidated with C08-03129 MMC) 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

; DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF

Case 3:08-cv-03129-MMC Document 243 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 2
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXPERT DECLARATIONS

CASE NOS. C08-03129 MMC & C08-04234 MMC

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File the Declarations of Dr. Robert T. 

Andrews, Dr. Warren S. Grundfest, and Dr. Terry A. Fuller in Further Support of its Oppositions to 

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment. Having considered the arguments and papers 

submitted by the parties, the Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________ 2010 

 

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

United States District Judge 

and defendants' opposition thereto.

, and plaintiff is DIRECTED to file

said declarations no later than July 30, 2010.

To the extent defendants' opposition challenges the admissibility and relevance of said

declarations, the Court will consider such challenges in connection with

its ruling on defendants' motions for summary judgment.

,

^

July 26

Case 3:08-cv-03129-MMC Document 243 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Nicholas Edwin Valentino, Appellant, v. Joseph P. Conboy, as Superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Institution, Respondent.

Appeal by relator from an *707order of the Washington County Court, which dismissed a writ of habeas corpus. Relator was convicted of grand larceny in the second degree on April 25, 1956 and sentenced to Elmira Reformatory for an indefinite term of five years maximum. He was released on parole on December 18, 1957. On September 6, 1958, while on parole, he was arrested in Nassau County on charges of burglary, third degree, and petit larceny. On September 9, 1958, the Parole Board declared relator delinquent and lodged a return warrant against him. He was held in the Nassau County Jail on the new charges until August 5, 1959, when he was convicted of burglary, third degree, after a jury trial. A sentence of 5 to 10 years was imposed, but the execution thereof suspended. Relator’s sole contention is that he is entitled to credit on his original sentence for the time he was held in the Nassau County Jail awaiting trial on the new charges. Subdivision 3 of section 2193 of the Penal Law provides for such credit only if the charge of the new crime *“*shall ultimately be dismissed or he is acquitted thereof”. Here the charge was not dismissed and relator was not acquitted. On the contrary he was convicted, and it follows that subdivision 3 of section 2193 has no application. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs.
#### Wong Hung, Appellant, v Ziegler and Robinson et al., Respondents.

[716 NYS2d 305]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered December 13,. 1999, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Gruner Gans, J., with costs and disbursements. No opinion. Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Rubin, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CertificationPursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United StatesCode)**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code), I, Michael G. Long, Chief Financial Officer of EdgePetroleum Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), herebycertify, to my knowledge, that:

(1)                                  theCompany’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

 
| Dated:   May 9, 2007 | /s/ Michael G.  Long                    |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                           | Michael G. Long                         |
|                           | Chief Financial  and Accounting Officer |

 

----
### §4854a. Testing technologies

The Secretary, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, shall conduct research to—

(1) develop improved methods for evaluating lead-based paint hazards in housing;

(2) develop improved methods for reducing lead-based paint hazards in housing;

(3) develop improved methods for measuring lead in paint films, dust, and soil samples;

(4) establish performance standards for various detection methods, including spot test kits;

(5) establish performance standards for lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, including the use of encapsulants;

(6) establish appropriate cleanup standards;

(7) evaluate the efficacy of interim controls in various hazard situations;

(8) evaluate the relative performance of various abatement techniques;

(9) evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of interim control and abatement strategies; and

(10) assess the effectiveness of hazard evaluation and reduction activities funded by this chapter.

(Pub. L. 102–550, title X, §1052, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3925.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in par. (10), was in the original "this Act", meaning title X of Pub. L. 102–550, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 3897, known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4851 of this title and Tables.
### §3042. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–478, title V, §501(a), Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1558

Section, Pub. L. 89–73, title V, §511, as added Pub. L. 93–29, title V, §501, May 3, 1973, 87 Stat. 54, related to personnel staffing grant program. See section 3030d(b)(2) of this title.

A prior section 3042, Pub. L. 89–73, title V, §502, July 14, 1965, 79 Stat. 225, related to payments of training project grants, providing in subsec. (a) for contribution by recipients; subsec. (b) adjustments, advances or reimbursement, installments, and conditions; and subsec. (c) consultation of Secretary with State agency prior to making grants or contracts, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 93–29, title IV, §401, May 3, 1973, 87 Stat. 45.

A prior section 3043, Pub. L. 89–73, title V, §503, as added Pub. L. 90–42, §6, July 1, 1967, 81 Stat. 108, related to study of need for trained personnel; and consultations with other government and private agencies and organizations, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 93–29, title IV, §401, May 3, 1973, 87 Stat. 45.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 95–478, title V, §501(a), Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1558, provided that the repeal by that section is effective at the close of Sept. 30, 1978.
§ 96.82 The Secretary's response to actions by the accrediting entity. ( a ) There is no administrative review by the Secretary of an accrediting entity's decision to deny accreditation or approval, nor of any decision by an accrediting entity to take an adverse action.
( b ) When informed by an accrediting entity that an agency has been accredited or a person has been approved, the Secretary will take appropriate steps to ensure that relevant information about the accredited agency or approved person is provided to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. When informed by an accrediting entity that it has taken an adverse action that impacts an agency's or person's accreditation or approval status, the Secretary will take appropriate steps to inform the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.
#### § 501.4 Junior Level Career Candidate Program (Class 6, 5, or 4).

Cross-reference: The regulations governing the junior level Career Candidate program are codified in part 11 of this title.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of George Primiano, Respondent, v Pep Boys Service et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 261]

—Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 18, 1998, which ruled that claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.

In July 1999, claimant was advised by his supervisor that unless a new position could be found for him, which was unlikely, his employment would be terminated the following month. Although he was not scheduled to work the day after being so advised, claimant returned to the employer’s premises to discuss the possibility of continuing employment. According to claimant, he was upset and depressed. Claimant’s supervisor told him that they would discuss the matter over lunch and claimant thereafter stood at the service desk waiting for the supervisor to go to lunch. As the result of an incident of horseplay instigated by another employee, claimant injured his knee while waiting at the service desk. The Workers’ Compensation Board rejected the employer’s argument that claimant was voluntarily at the premises for purely personal reasons and concluded instead that claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appeal.

“The determination of whether an activity is within the *632course of employment or is purely personal is a factual question for the Board’s resolution and depends upon whether the activity is reasonable and sufficiently work related” *(Matter of D’Accordo v Spare Wheels Car Shoppe,*257 AD2d 966, 967). Based upon claimant’s testimony that he went to the employer’s premises to discuss a personnel matter involving his employment, a matter which his supervisor also viewed as warranting further discussion, the Board could properly conclude that claimant’s presence at the employer’s premises was reasonable and sufficiently work related to fall within the course of employment *(see, Matter of Rodriguez v Sunnyside Garden Kennels,*27 AD2d 967, *lv denied*20 NY2d 643).

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., *concur.*Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Roger F. Wagner, Appellant, and American Arbitration Association et al., Respondents.

Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered December 29, 1976 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application seeking a stay of the arbitration herein and the removal of the arbitrator. On October 28, 1974, petitioner was allegedly injured in a motor vehicle accident, and he was thereafter denied first-party no-fault benefits by respondent American Empire Insurance Company. As a result, the matter was submitted to arbitration in accordance with subdivision 2 of section 675 of the Insurance Law, and a hearing thereon was conducted over a period of 12 days during October, 1976. Subsequent to this hearing, but prior to the rendering of the arbitrator’s decision, petitioner moved at Special Term to stay the proceeding and remove the arbitrator, principally because of his alleged bias and prejudice against petitioner. Finding that petitioner could move to vacate the ultimate award should it develop that the arbitrator was partial (CPLR 7511, subd [b], par 1, cl [ii]) and that, therefore, he had an adequate statutory remedy available, Special Term dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued. We hold that the order and judgment appealed from should be affirmed. As ruled by Special Term, the. question of bias on the part of an arbitrator is properly raised under CPLR 7511 after the arbitrator has rendered a decision *(Copen Assoc, v Dan Riv.,*53 AD2d 843). With regard to any procedural objections of petitioner, they were waived by his continued participation in the arbitration proceeding (CPLR 7511, subd [b], par 1, cl [iv]). Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.
STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)

CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

§ 11 State school aid fund; source; distribution; guarantee to local school district.

Sec. 11. There shall be established a state school aid fund which shall be used exclusively for aid to school

districts, higher education, and school employees' retirement systems, as provided by law. Sixty percent of all

taxes imposed at a rate of 4% on retailers on taxable sales at retail of tangible personal property, 100% of the

proceeds of the sales and use taxes imposed at the additional rate of 2% provided for in section 8 of this

article, and other tax revenues provided by law, shall be dedicated to this fund. Payments from this fund shall

be made in full on a scheduled basis, as provided by law. Beginning in the 1995-96 state fiscal year and each

state fiscal year after 1995-96, the state shall guarantee that the total state and local per pupil revenue for

school operating purposes for each local school district shall not be less than the 1994-95 total state and local

per pupil revenue for school operating purposes for that local school district, as adjusted for consolidations,

annexations, or other boundary changes. However, this guarantee does not apply in a year in which the local

school district levies a millage rate for school district operating purposes less than it levied in 1994.

History: Const. 1963, Art. IX, § 11, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964;Am. S.J.R. S, approved Mar. 15, 1994, Eff. Apr. 30, 1994.

Rendered Thursday, September 17, 2015 Page 1 Michigan Compiled Laws Complete Through PA 130 of 2015

 Legislative Council, State of Michigan Courtesy of www.legislature.mi.gov

ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit 10.3






Exhibit 10.3









	 	 	 
	BORROWER:

	 	LENDER:
	Westmoreland Resources, Inc,

	 	FIRST INTERSTATE BANK
	PO Box 449

	 	Billings Office — Commercial Dept.
	Hardin, MT 59043-0449

	 	401 North 31st St.
	 

	 	P. O. Box 30918
	 

	 	Billings, MT 59116
	 
	 	 
	Date of Agreement

	 	December 4, 2009
	Note Number:

	 	1100236330






Description of Existing Indebtedness: Promissory note dated October 29, 2007 in original principal
amount of $8,500,000.00. Current principal balance is $8,000,000.00.



Description of Collateral: All inventory, chattel paper, accounts, equipment and general
intangibles.



Description of Change in Terms:



Lender will permit a one-time additional advance of principal, in one or more advances up to
$4,000,000.00, resulting in a total principal balance that may be outstanding of $12,000,000.00.



Payment schedule is as follows:



Quarterly payments in the amount of $600,000.00 plus interest for 19 payments beginning January 29,
2010, with a balance plus interest due at maturity on January 29, 2015.



Extension/modification fee of $40,000.00 payable on the date hereof.




Continuing Validity. Except as expressly changed by this Agreement, the terms of the original
obligation or obligations, including all agreements evidenced or securing the obligation(s), remain
unchanged and in full force and effect. Consent by Lender to this Agreement does not waive Lender’s
right to strict performance of the obligation(s) as changed, nor obligate Lender to make any future
change in terms. Nothing in this Agreement will constitute a satisfaction of the obligation(s). It
is the intention of Lender to
retain as liable parties all makers and endorsers of the original obligation(s), including
accommodation parties, unless a party is expressly released by Lender in writing. Any maker or
endorser, including accommodation makers, will not be released by virtue of this Agreement. If any
person who signed the original obligation does not sign this Agreement below, then all persons
signing below acknowledge that this Agreement is given conditionally, based on the representation
to Lender that the non-signing party consents to the changes and provisions of this Agreement or
otherwise will not be released by it. This waiver applies not only to any initial extension,
modification or release, but also to all such subsequent actions.



PRIOR TO SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, BORROWER READ AND UNDERSTOOD ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT,
BORROWER AGREES TO THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF A COMPLETED COPY OF THE
AGREEMENT.



BORROWER:



Westmoreland Resources, Inc,




	 	 	 	 	 
	BY:

	 	/s/ Douglas P. Kathol
 

DOUGLAS P. KATHOL
	 	 
	 

	 	VICE PRESIDENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND TREASURER	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	FIRST
INTERSTATE BANK	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	BY:

	 	/s/ Steve Tostenrud
 

STEVE TOSTENRUD, VICE PRESIDENT
(November 6, 2000)

#### Farid Adhami et al., Appellants, v Kui Soon Cho, Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 869]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated December 20, 1999, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff Farid Adhami did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The evidence submitted by the defendant, including the affirmed medical reports of the physicians who examined the plaintiff Farid Adhami on behalf of the defendant, established prima facie that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of an accident involving the defendant’s vehicle. The plaintiffs’ evidence submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff Farid Adhami sustained a serious injury as a result of the subject accident *(see, Grossman v Wright,*268 AD2d 79; *Guzman v Michael Mgt.,*266 AD2d 508). Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
Case 3:09-cr-00826-MEJ Document 10 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 6Case 3:09-cr-00826-MEJ Document 10 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 6Case 3:09-cr-00826-MEJ Document 10 Filed 02/04/10 Page 3 of 6Case 3:09-cr-00826-MEJ Document 10 Filed 02/04/10 Page 4 of 6Case 3:09-cr-00826-MEJ Document 10 Filed 02/04/10 Page 5 of 6Case 3:09-cr-00826-MEJ Document 10 Filed 02/04/10 Page 6 of 6