alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Theodore White, Respondent, against Iroquois Gas Corporation, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Self-insured employer appeals from an award for partial disability due to Dupuytren’s contracture of both hands found to be an occupational disease. Claimant had been employed by the same employer for approximately 12 years. He noticed some difficulty with his hands early in .1948, but continued working until on or about August 6, 1951, when he was discharged for other reasons. On August 7, 1951 claimant visited his doctor who advised an operation, which was performed on October 26, 1951. Claimant’s duties involved heavy use of his hands. Upon two physical examinations at about the time of his original employment nothing was wrong with his hands. There is ample evidence to establish a recognizable link between the disease and claimant’s occupation. The board has found that the date of disablement was August 7, 1951, and further found: “ The disease from which the claimant was suffering was an occupational disease contracted by him in the same employ*573ment with the same employer for whom he worked at the time of his disablement, and he continued in the same employment from the time of the contraction of the disease up to the date of disablement therefrom.” The evidence supports such a finding, and section 40 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law does not bar the claim. *(Matter of Sheehy*v. *Boyle,*8 A D 2d 267.) We find no merit in the contention of appellants that claimant failed to give timely notice of his condition or to timely file a claim. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.
### §5819. Report to Congress on future reorganization

(a) The President shall transmit to the Congress as promptly as possible, but not later than June 30, 1975, such additional recommendations as he deems advisable for organization of energy and related functions in the Federal Government, including, but not limited to, whether or not there shall be established (1) a Department of Energy and Natural Resources, (2) an Energy Policy Council, and (3) a consolidation in whole or in part of regulatory functions concerning energy.

(b) This report shall replace and serve the purposes of the report required by section 774(a)(4) 1 of title 15.

(Pub. L. 93–438, title I, §109, Oct. 11, 1974, 88 Stat. 1242.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 774(a)(4) of title 15, referred to in subsec. (b), was struck out by Pub. L. 94–385, title I, §109(a)(1), Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1130.

1 See References in Text note below.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 9, 2014

NO. 03

- 12

- 00333

- CR

Rogelio Alaniz, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PE MBERTON, AND ROSE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction

.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
exv4w6






Exhibit 4.6




Translation of the Chinese original




Agreement




	 	 	 	 	 
	Party A:

	 	Xu Qiming
	 	ID: 350382196904285010
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Party B:

	 	Li Tung Kwo
	 	ID: P038325(6)
	 

	 	Shi Xiaolong
	 	ID: R402540(6)
	 

	 	Tung Lun Kai
	 	ID: P330205(2)





Fujian Xiniya Garments and Weaving Co., Ltd. (the “Company”) was established as a wholly
foreign-owned enterprise on September 7, 2005 upon the approval from competent governmental
authorities. In order to obtain the foreign exchange required for the establishment of the
Company, Xu Qiming, the actual controlling person of the Company, reached an agreement with Li Tung
Kwo, Shi Xiaolong and Tung Lun Kai as follows:



Li Tung Kwo, Shi Xiaolong and Tung Lun Kai shall be responsible for obtaining all the foreign
exchange required for the incorporation of the Company. In case in any year from 2006 to 2008, the
Company incurs losses, Xu Qiming shall repay in full Li Tung Kwo, Shi Xiaolong and Tung Lun Kai any
amount contributed by them plus any interest accrued thereon at the rate of 10% per annum. Where
the Company generates profit within the said three years and the aggregate amount of the profit is
no less than HK$100.0 million, starting from January 1, 2009, at any time deemed appropriate by Li
Tung Kwo, Shi Xiaolong and Tung Lun Kai, Xu Qiming shall transfer 20% of the equity interest in the
Company to Li Tung Kwo, Shi Xiaolong and Tung Lun Kai or persons or companies designated by them.
Where within the said three years, the Company fails to generate a profit of HK$100.0 million
although it does not incur losses, Li Tung Kwo, Shi Xiaolong and Tung Lun Kai may, at their own
discretion, request Xu Qiming to repay any amount contributed by them plus any interest accrued
thereon, or transfer 20% of the equity interest in the Company to Li Tung Kwo, Shi Xiaolong and
Tung Lun Kai, or persons or companies designated by them, in each case, pursuant to the foregoing
provisions.




	 	 	 

	Party A:

	 	/s/ Xu Qiming
	 
	 	 
	Party B:

	 	/s/ Li Tung Kwo, Shi Xiaolong, Tung Lun Kai






Date: December 21, 2005
#### Webb *v.*The State.

May 14, 1912.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Worrill. Early superior court. February 29, 1912.

*Bambo & Wright,*for plaintiff in error.

*T. 8. Felder, attorney-general,*and *J. A. Laing, solicitor-general,*by *B. B. Arnold,*contra.

Beck, J.

1. Where, after a verdict of guilty is rendered in a criminal ease, in the motion for a new trial the competency of one of the jurors is attacked on the ground that the juror was not impartial and that he was biased and prejudiced, and the evidence as to the disqualification of the juror before the trial judge is conflicting, this court will not reverse the finding, unless it appears that the judge below abused the discretion with which the law invests him in passing upon the conflicting evidence and holding that the juror was not incompetent under the evidence. *Hackett*v. *State,*108 *Ga.*40 (33 S. E. 842).

2. The evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment ajfirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
exv10w51





EXHIBIT
10.51





Employment Outline

For

Samantha Roady




Director of Marketing



	 	 	 

	1. Salary

	 	 $80,000
	 
	 	 
	2. Bonus

	 	No cash bonus
	 
	 	 
	3. Options

	 	45,000 out of a current 10,000,000
shares outstanding following GAIN’s
completed first venture round.
Strike price to be set between $.50
-$1.10 per share. Three year vest –
straight line (ie. You get 1/3 of
your options on your first
anniversary date). After closing,
you will receive a detailed option
agreement. Your options are part of
an employee options pool that covers
yourself and all other GAIN
employees. The grant of options will
be subject to approval by the
Company’s Board of Directors. On top
of the 15% employee pool dilution,
GAIN will actively be looking for a
strategic partner to invest in GAIN
and give us additional credibility.
This amount is likely to be at least
10% of existing shares.
	 
	 	 
	4. Right to Purchase     Preferred Stock

	 	None
	 
	 	 
	5. Benefits

	 	At this time we are anticipating
health insurance (PPO not HMO) 75%
funded by GAIN, long-term disability
insurance (60% of salary after 180
days), short-term disability
insurance, life insurance (equal to
salary), workman’s compensation, and
a 401k package.
	 
	 	 
	6. Legal

	 	All GAIN employees must sign a
confidentiality, non-compete and
non-hire agreement. All GAIN
employees are employees at will.
	 
	 	 
	7. Hours

	 	As many as possible.
	 
	 	 
	8. Vacation

	 	Three weeks per year. All vacations
during the first 6 months of the
year 2000 must be approved in
advance by the CEO.





This offer shall terminate if not signed by both parties.




	 	 	 	 

	/s/ Mark E. Galant
 

Mark E. Galant
 CEO

	 	/s/ Samantha Roady
 
 Samantha
Roady
	 
	 	 
	10/1/99
 

Date

	 	10/1/99
 
 Date
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28038]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-55,871]

Merrow Machine Company, Newington, CT; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on October 27, 2004 in response to a worker 
petition filed by International Union of Electronic, Electrical, 
Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers--Communications Workers of 
America, Local 249, on behalf of workers at Merrow Machine Company, 
Newington, Connecticut.
    The Department issued a negative determination (TA-W-55,871) 
applicable to the petitioning group of workers on July 13, 2004. No new 
information or change in circumstances is evident which would result in 
a reversal of the Department's previous determination. Consequently, 
further investigation would serve no purpose, and the investigation has 
been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of December, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-28038 Filed 12-22-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
```
### §4020. Dissemination of flood insurance information

The Administrator shall from time to time take such action as may be necessary in order to make information and data available to the public, and to any State or local agency or official, with regard to—

(1) the flood insurance program, its coverage and objectives, and

(2) estimated and chargeable flood insurance premium rates, including the basis for and differences between such rates in accordance with the provisions of section 4015 of this title.

(Pub. L. 90–448, title XIII, §1313, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 579; Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title IV, §451(d)(1)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1229; Pub. L. 112–141, div. F, title II, §100238(b)(1), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 958.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2012—Pub. L. 112–141 substituted "Administrator" for "Director" in introductory provisions.

1983—Pub. L. 98–181 substituted "Director" for "Secretary" in introductory provisions.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 120 days following Aug. 1, 1968, or such later date prescribed by the Secretary but in no event more than 180 days following Aug. 1, 1968, see section 1377 of Pub. L. 90–448, set out as a note under section 4001 of this title.

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of all functions, personnel, assets, components, authorities, grant programs, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management relating thereto, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, see section 315(a)(1) of Title 6, Domestic Security.

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see former section 313(1) and sections 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ROBERT H. MITCHELL, JR.,

AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE

OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT H. MITCHELL

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 17

- 1585

JOHN E. LEMIEUX, INDIVIDUALLY,

AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE

OF THE ESTATE OF CURTIS F. MITCHELL

AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE CURTIS F.

MITCHELL LIVING TRUST, RICHARD F.

MITCHELL AND JANET MITCHELL WILSON

,

Appellee s

.

________________________________/

Opinion filed August 10, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Seminole County

, Melissa Souto , Judge.

Michael Kangas, of BaumannKangas

Estate Law, Tampa, for Appellant.

Patrick A. Mc G ee, of McGee & Powers,

P

. A

. , Orlando, for Appellee , John E.

Lemieux, Individually, as Personal

Representative of the Estate of Curtis F.

Mitchell and as Trustee of the Curtis F.

Mitchell Living Trust.

No Appearance for other Appellees.2

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Richardson v. Everbank , 152 So. 3d 1282, 1287

- 88 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2015) (holding appellate court cannot reweigh evid ence considered by trial court;

instead, appellate court can only decide whether competent, substantial evidence exists

to support trial court’s decision).

PALMER and ORFINGER

, JJ., and MUNYON, L. T., Associate Judge, concur.
#### Carole J. Philipps, Respondent, v George W. Philipps, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of divorce of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated March 16, 1977, as awarded child support and counsel fees. Judgment modified, on the law, on the court’s own motion, by deleting so much thereof as fixed the amount of arrears at $21,325, and awarded plaintiff judgment in that amount, with interest thereon. As so modified, judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and action re*980xnanded to Trial Term for a hearing and a new determination as to arrears. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in making the awards of child support and counsel fees. However, after searching the record, we are of the opinion that Special Term did abuse its discretion in awarding the plaintiff a judgment for arrears in the amount of $21,325. The plaintiff wife obtained the defendant’s interest in the marital home with a bid of $300 at a public sale upon execution of a judgment for arrears. The equity in the property, owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety, appears to have been in excess of $35,000 at the time of the sale. Thus the plaintiff obtained the entire equity in the house for $300. The defendant’s efforts to obtain judicial relief from that sale have been ineffective (see *Philipps v Philipps, 61*AD2d 979). On these facts, it is unjust to award plaintiff the full arrears due under the 1971 judgment of separation. At the hearing to be held on the remand, Special Term should consider the value to the wife of the husband’s interest in the marital home at the time of the sale. In determining such value, the court should, of course, consider the contributions both parties made toward the purchase and maintenance of the house up to the time of the sale. We make no determination as to what extent arrears should be modified, if at all, but only direct Special Term to consider these factors when exercising its discretion in considering whether to modify the arrears (see Domestic Relations Law, § 244). Shapiro, J. P., Cohalan, Hargett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
### §5507. Arrangements with Federal agencies for development and demonstration of solar heating and combined heating and cooling systems for commercial buildings

The Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of General Services, and the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and concurrently with the conduct of the programs under sections 5503 and 5504 of this title, shall enter into arrangements with appropriate Federal agencies to carry out such projects and activities (including demonstration projects) with respect to apartment buildings, office buildings, factories, crop-drying facilities and other agricultural structures, public buildings (including schools and colleges), and other non-residential, commercial, or industrial buildings, taking into account the special needs of and individual differences in such buildings based upon size, function, and other relevant factors, as may be appropriate for the early development and demonstration of solar heating and combined solar heating and cooling systems suitable and effective for use in such buildings.

(Pub. L. 93–409, §9, Sept. 3, 1974, 88 Stat. 1074; Pub. L. 93–438, title I, §104(f), title III, §301(h), Oct. 11, 1974, 88 Stat. 1238, 1250; Pub. L. 95–91, title III, §301(a), title VII, §§703, 707, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 577, 606, 607; Pub. L. 100–418, title V, §5115(c), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1433.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–418 substituted "National Institute of Standards and Technology" for "National Bureau of Standards".

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

#### Transfer of Functions

"Secretary of Energy" substituted in text for "Director", meaning Director of National Science Foundation, pursuant to sections 104(f) and 301(h) of Pub. L. 93–438, which are classified to sections 5814(f) and 5871(h) of this title and which transferred functions of National Science Foundation relating to or utilized in connection with solar heating and cooling development to Administrator of Energy Research and Development Administration, and pursuant to sections 301(a), 703, and 707 of Pub. L. 95–91, which are classified to sections 7151(a), 7293, and 7297 of this title and which terminated Energy Research and Development Administration and transferred its functions and functions of Administrator thereof (with certain exceptions) to Secretary of Energy.
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

C 08-02313

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

Oakland Division

U-HAUL CO. OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF BERKELEY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-02313 LB

ORDER SETTING DATE FOR JOINT

STATUS REPORT

On July 28, 2010, the parties filed a Joint Status Report. Joint Status Report, ECF No. 55. 

According to the parties, Judge Whitley of the Alameda County Superior Court denied Plaintiff’s

Motion for Reconsideration of her order granting Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s CrossComplaint on July 16, 2010. Id. at 2. Accordingly, the parties are hereby ORDERED to file a Joint

Status Report by December 1, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2010 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02313-LB Document 56 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ned Cecchini, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster *714County, rendered June 30, 1976, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a mandatory maximum of life and a minimum of six years. Defendant’s principal contention on this appeal is that, because he disagreed with the prosecutor’s outline of his involvement in the crimes charged, the trial court erred in failing to inquire into the facts of the crime at the time of his guilty plea. An examination of the record discloses that the trial court questioned defendant thoroughly and was satisfied that he fully understood the consequences of changing his plea to guilty. The defendant admitted that he knew that he could receive a minimum sentence of 15 years upon conviction of the first count of the indictment. When asked by the court why he was pleading guilty, defendant replied that the guilty plea was to his benefit since it removed the possibility of a much longer minimum sentence imposable upon conviction of the first degree offense charged in the indictment. The trial court is not bound in every situation to catechize a defendant about his guilt. The record establishes that defendant was represented by retained competent counsel of his own choice and was fully aware of the effect of his plea *(People v Nixon, 21*NY2d 338; *People v Seaton,*19 NY2d 404; *People v Fierro,*50 AD2d 1013). Defendant also raises a challenge to the composition of the jury panel. However, defendant by his voluntary plea with advice of counsel, waived his right to a trial by jury *(Boykin v Alabama,*395 US 238). He was given ample time to examine the permanent jury list when his trial was put over to the next term after his challenge to the jury panel was denied. Defendant failed to utilize this additional time but chose instead to plead guilty to the lesser offense. There is no merit to defendant’s remaining contention that article 220 of the Penal Law is unconstitutional since cocaine is "a relatively harmless drug”. The Court of Appeals has held that the sentencing statutes under article 220 do not impose cruel and unusual punishment *(People v Broadie,*37 NY2d 100, cert den 423 US 950). Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
### §5180. Food commodities

#### (a) Emergency mass feeding

The President is authorized and directed to assure that adequate stocks of food will be ready and conveniently available for emergency mass feeding or distribution in any area of the United States which suffers a major disaster or emergency.

#### (b) Funds for purchase of food commodities

The Secretary of Agriculture shall utilize funds appropriated under section 612c of title 7, to purchase food commodities necessary to provide adequate supplies for use in any area of the United States in the event of a major disaster or emergency in such area.

(Pub. L. 93–288, title IV, §413, formerly §410, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 157; renumbered §413, Pub. L. 100–707, title I, §106(h), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4705.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 413 of Pub. L. 93–288 was renumbered section 416 by Pub. L. 100–707 and is classified to section 5183 of this title.
### §614. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–235, div. G, title II, §228(f), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2492

Section, Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §414, as added Pub. L. 104–193, title I, §103(a)(1), Aug. 22, 1996, 110 Stat. 2156; amended Pub. L. 105–33, title V, §5514(c), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 620; Pub. L. 108–40, §3(i), June 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 837; Pub. L. 112–96, title IV, §4002(f), Feb. 22, 2012, 126 Stat. 195, related to a study by the Census Bureau.

A prior section 614, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title IV, §414, as added Aug. 13, 1981, Pub. L. 97–35, title XXIII, §2308, 95 Stat. 848; amended July 18, 1984, Pub. L. 98–369, div. B, title VI, §§2638(a), 2663(c)(7)(A), 98 Stat. 1143, 1166, related to work supplementation program, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–485, title II, §§202(b)(13), 204(a), (b)(1)(A), Oct. 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 2378, 2381, effective Oct. 1, 1990, with provision for earlier effective dates in case of States making certain changes in their State plans and formally notifying the Secretary of Health and Human Services of their desire to become subject to the amendments by title II of Pub. L. 100–485, at such earlier effective dates.