alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Herbert Stanley Hartman, an Attorney, Respondent. Joint Bar Association Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Second Department,

January 30, 1978

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert Roberto, Jr. (Raymond J. Foley*of counsel), for petitioner.

*195OPINION OF THE COURT

*Per Curiam.*

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on June 16, 1965. In this proceeding to discipline him for professional misconduct, the petitioner moves to confirm the report of the retired Justice of the Supreme Court to whom the issues were referred for hearing and report.

The Referee sustained six charges of professional misconduct against the respondent as follows: (1) neglecting a workmen’s compensation claim, settling a third-party liability action without authorization, and failing to account for the proceeds of a settlement; (2) violating his duty as a notary public in connection with the execution of a release; (3) after filing a retainer statement with the Office of Court Administration, failing to file a closing statement; (4) failing to cooperate with the Nassau County Bar Association and the petitioner in their respective investigations of the above-mentioned complaints; (5) neglecting a matrimonial matter and not accounting for a fee of $375 paid to him; and (6) failing to co-operate with the petitioner in its investigation of the last-stated complaint.

After reviewing all of the evidence we are in accord with the findings of the Referee. Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report is granted.

The respondent is adjudged guilty of serious professional misconduct and should be, and he hereby is, disbarred from further practice of law, and his name is ordered removed from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law, effective forthwith.

Mollen P. J. Hopkins, Latham, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.
(April 11, 1977)

#### A. Colish, Inc., Appellant, v Professional Press, Inc., Respondent.

—In an action for the agreed price and reasonable value of work, labor and services, plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered October 26, 1976, which granted the branch of defendant’s motion which sought dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of in personam jurisdiction and (2) a further order of the same court, entered December 21, 1976, which denied its renewal motion. Appeal from the order entered October 26, 1976 dismissed as academic. This order was superseded by the order made on renewal on new facts. Order entered December 21, 1976 affirmed. Defendant-respondent is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. Plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant was transacting business within this State (see CPLR 302, subd [a], par 1; *McKee Elec. Co. v Rauland-Borg Co.,*20 NY2d 377, 382; *Aero-Brocker Knitting Mills v Allied Fabrics Corp.,*54 AD2d 647; *Concrete Detailing Serv. v Thomsson Steel Co.,*411 F Supp 1021). Margett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and Suozzi, JJ., concur.
§ 14.335 Departmental review. ( a ) Either the applicant or agency counsel may seek review of the initial decision on the fee application, or the Secretary (or his or her delegate, if any) may decide to review the decision on his or her own initiative, in accordance with the Department's review or appeals procedures applicable to the underlying proceeding. If neither the applicant nor agency counsel seeks review and the Secretary (or his or her delegate, if any) does not take review on his or her own initiative, the initial decision on the application shall become a final decision of the Department in the same manner as a decision in the underlying proceeding becomes final. Whether to review a decision is a matter within the discretion of the Secretary (or his or her delegate, if any). If review is taken, the Department will issue a final decision on the application or remand the application to the adjudicative officer for further proceedings.
( b ) Either party may seek reconsideration of the decision on the fee application in accordance with Rule 29, 24 CFR 20.10.
### §3712f. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3712f was editorially reclassified as section 10107 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §5188. Timber sale contracts

#### (a) Cost-sharing arrangement

Where an existing timber sale contract between the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of the Interior and a timber purchaser does not provide relief from major physical change not due to negligence of the purchaser prior to approval of construction of any section of specified road or of any other specified development facility and, as a result of a major disaster, a major physical change results in additional construction work in connection with such road or facility by such purchaser with an estimated cost, as determined by the appropriate Secretary, (1) of more than $1,000 for sales under one million board feet, (2) of more than $1 per thousand board feet for sales of one to three million board feet, or (3) of more than $3,000 for sales over three million board feet, such increased construction cost shall be borne by the United States.

#### (b) Cancellation of authority

If the appropriate Secretary determines that damages are so great that restoration, reconstruction, or construction is not practical under the cost-sharing arrangement authorized by subsection (a) of this section, he may allow cancellation of a contract entered into by his Department notwithstanding contrary provisions therein.

#### (c) Public notice of sale

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to reduce to seven days the minimum period of advance public notice required by section 476 1 of title 16, in connection with the sale of timber from national forests, whenever the Secretary determines that (1) the sale of such timber will assist in the construction of any area of a State damaged by a major disaster, (2) the sale of such timber will assist in sustaining the economy of such area, or (3) the sale of such timber is necessary to salvage the value of timber damaged in such major disaster or to protect undamaged timber.

#### (d) State grants for removal of damaged timber; reimbursement of expenses limited to salvage value of removed timber

The President, when he determines it to be in the public interest, is authorized to make grants to any State or local government for the purpose of removing from privately owned lands timber damaged as a result of a major disaster, and such State or local government is authorized upon application, to make payments out of such grants to any person for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred by such person in the removal of damaged timber, not to exceed the amount that such expenses exceed the salvage value of such timber.

(Pub. L. 93–288, title IV, §421, formerly §418, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 158; renumbered §421, Pub. L. 100–707, title I, §106(j), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4705.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 476 of title 16, referred to in subsec. (c), was repealed by Pub. L. 94–588, §13, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2958.

1 See References in Text note below.
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

WELLS FARGO BANK NA,

Plaintiff / Counterdefendant

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED

July 23, 2020

v No. 348033

Ingham Circuit Court

VICKY RICHTER ENTERPRISES, doing business

as GUIDO’S PREMIUM PIZZA, INC., and STEVE

POLLARD,

Defendants / Counterplaintiffs

Appellants. LC No. 17

- 000547

- CB

Before: R IORDAN

, P .J., and R ONAYNE K RAUSE and S HAPIRO , JJ.

S HAPIRO

, J. ( concurring ).

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
December 10. 1940
Hon. J. S. Ho&man Opinion No. V-731 District Attorney 9thJudicial District Re: Yhethcr the additioasl 10% Coaroe. Texas license fee required byArticle 6675a-8c, V.C.S.. must be paid for vehicles power.7 ed by other thanDiesel motors or engines which burn butane gas or say distillate Dear Sir: other than gasoline.

You have requested the opinion ofthis office onthe above-captioned matter.

Article 6675a-%c, V.C.S., provides for anadditional license fee for certain vehicles and reads as follows:

‘It is expressly provided thatthe license fees for all vehicles using or being propelled by Diesel motors or engines shall be the fees provided above, plus anadditional tea (10%) per cent. Itis further provided thatthe County Tax Collector, in issuing the license receipts for motor vehicles provided for in this Act, shall clearly indicate onthe license receiot the type ofmotor bywhich the vehicle is propelled when such motor is powered by Diesel fuel, butane gas, or any distillate other than gasoline. ” Acts 1929, 41st Leg..~2ad C.S. p. 172, ch. 88. g 8c. added Acts 1941.47th Leg., p. 144, ch. 110,g 10.

. This particular provision of the laws regulating vehicles has notbeen.coastrued by the courts. We are ofthe opinion thatthe plain andunambiguous language ofthe first sentence **of** Article 6675a-8c limits its applicability to “vehicles using or being propelled by Diesel motors or engines.” SUMMARY The additional license fee required byArticle 6675a-8c, V.C.S., need notbe paid for vehicles powered by other thanDiesel motors or engines which. Hon. J. S. Hollemaa, Page 2 (V-731)

burn butane gas or any distillate other than gesoline.

Yours very truly APPROVED: ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS

MC/JCP Assistant
### Summary of Analy tical Results 662 - August 2011 **Sample ID** 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB 662-GRAB **Date** 8/1/11 8/8/11 8/15/11 8/22/11 8/29/11 **Top (ft)** 0 0 0 0 0 **Total (T)/ Bottom (ft)**  0 0 0 0 0 **An aly**  **te units** **Diss. (D) Duplicate #**  1 1 1 1 1 PFOA ug/L T 3.76 3.45 6.74 4.10 5.53

Samples were analyzed by Critical Path Services. Reported results PFOA = Perfluorooctanoic Acid ug/L = micrograms per Liter
represent a single analysis, except for the sample collected on 8/1/11. collected on 8/1/11 represents the average of duplicate results. Aceptable precision was obtained and the reported result for the sample

< and ND = Non detect at stated reporting limit Page 1 of 1 0900006480fc8fd1.xls:Sheet1 2/29/2012 12:23 PM
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
     I, Ronald D. Risher, the Chief Executive Officer of Lason, Inc. (the“registrant”) certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisquarterly report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15-e) for the registrant and we have:
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures orcaused such disclosure controls, and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;  (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisquarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and;  (c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the board of directors (orpersons fulfilling the equivalent function):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal controls over financial reporting.        August 10, 2004  /s/ Ronald D. Risher         Ronald D. Risher         Chief Executive Officer
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Internet Infinity, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2004 (the Report), I, George P. Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §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 Company.




****Date: February 16, 2005
By:
/s/*George P. Morris*George P. MorrisChairman and Chief Executive Officer


The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.







|Exhibit 32
|----------
|          
|          

|
|
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

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

1

ERSKINE & TULLEY

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

MICHAEL J. CARROLL (ST. BAR #50246)

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 303

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 392-5431

Facsimile: (415) 392-1978

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

McGLASHAN & SARRAIL

WILLIAM A. BAULD

177 Bovet Road, Sixth Floor

San Mateo, CA 94402

Telephone: (650) 341-2585

Facsimile: (650) 341-1395

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AUTOMOTIVE 

INDUSTRIES PENSION FUND, et al.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COLOGNE AUTO BODY INC., a California

corporation,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. C 09 0043 EMC

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

The parties having entered into a Settlement Agreement and

Release, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that this action be dismissed with

prejudice.

Case 3:09-cv-00043-EMC Document 29 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 2
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

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL

2

DATED: April 6, 2010 ERSKINE & TULLEY

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

By:/s/Michael J. Carroll

Michael J. Carroll

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Northwest Administrators, Inc.

DATED: April 6, 2010 McGLASHAN & SARRAIL

By:/s/William A. Bauld

William A. Bauld

Attorneys for Defendant

 Cologne Auto Body Inc.

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 

 

JUDGE EDWARD M. CHEN

Case 3:09-cv-00043-EMC Document 29 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 2
Promissory Note


DEMAND NOTE




1.

Names:

Borrower:

Freedom Formulations, LLC

6615 Brotherhood Way, Suite A

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825

Lender: 

Brian Kistler

6615 Brotherhood Way Suite A

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46825

2.

Promise to Pay.  

For value received, Borrower promises to pay Lender the amount of money recorded on the payment grid attached on Schedule A. 

Lender agrees to loan an unlimited credit line to Borrower.

3.

Principal Payment.  

Borrower may pay the principal in full together with any accrued interest.  The interest rate shall be 0% APR.  Borrower can, at any point pay the Lender the Principal and amount in cash.  

4.

Collection Costs.  

If Lender prevails in a lawsuit to collect on this note, Borrower will pay Lender's costs and lawyers' fees in an amount the court finds to be reasonable.

5.

Notices.  

All notices must be in writing. A notice may be delivered to Borrower or Lender at the address specified in section 1, above, or to a new address Borrower or Lender has designated in writing. A notice may be delivered:




(1) in person

(2) by certified mail, or

(3) by overnight courier.




6.  Security.

Borrower agrees that until the principal and interest owed under this Promissory Note are paid in full, this note will be secured by giving Lender a security interest in Borrower’s company, Freedom Formulations, LLC and to any successors of this company.  

7.  Governing Law.  

This promissory note will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Indiana.

8.  Severability.

If any court determines that any provision of this promissory note is invalid or unenforceable, any invalidity or unenforceability will affect only that provision and will not make any other provision of this agreement invalid or unenforceable and such provision shall be modified, amended, or limited only to the extent necessary to render it valid and enforceable.




Dated: October 9, 2009




By: /s/:  Brian Kistler

Lender: Brian Kistler




By:/s/:  Brian Kistler

Borrower: Brian Kistler, Managing Director,

Freedom Formulations, LLC


















Schedule A:




DATE:

AMOUNT:

10-9-09

$1,500.00

1-3-10

$ 900.00

2-1-10

$1,080.00

3-5-10

$3,522.27

4-2-10

$5,864.85

5-5-10

$2,678.37

6-10-10

$1,355.51
Second Amendment to Special Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.5 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO 
 HYATT
HOTELS CORPORATION 
 SPECIAL RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT 

WHEREAS, Hyatt Hotels Corporation (the “Company”) has entered into a Special Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement with Mark S.
Hoplazmazian (“Participant”) with a grant date of May 2, 2008 (the “Special RSU Agreement”); 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the restrictive covenants set forth in the Special RSU Agreement; 

WHEREAS, to the extent not defined herein, capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Special RSU Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, this Second Amendment shall apply solely to the Special RSU Agreement and no other Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreements with
Participant. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Special RSU Agreement is hereby amended effective as of September 12, 2010 by deleting the
Section entitled “Nonsolicitation & Noncompetition Covenants” and replacing it with the following: 
 “In the event
of a material breach of the restrictive covenants referred to in the letter agreement between Participant and the Company dated July 30, 2009, the Participant shall forfeit all unvested Awards made under the Plan; and, additionally, (i) in
the event of a material breach of such covenants during the Participant’s employment, the Participant shall forfeit any vested Award made under the Plan that vested within a one (1) year period prior to the date of the material breach; and
(ii) in the event of a material breach of such covenants after the Participant’s Termination of Service, the Participant shall forfeit any vested Award made under the Plan that vested within a one (1) year period prior to the date of
the Participant’s Termination of Service.” 
 In all other regards the Special RSU Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 

			
	HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION
		
	 By:
	 	 
	 Its:
	 	


 Dated:
                    , 2010
Case3:08-cv-04417-EDL Document160 Filed02/23/10 Page1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Dated: 2/25/10

Case 3:08-cv-04417-EDL Document 161 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-04417-EDL Document 161 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 3 Case3:08-cv-04417-EDL Document160 Filed02/23/10 Page2 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-04417-EDL Document 161 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 3 Case3:08-cv-04417-EDL Document160 Filed02/23/10 Page3 of 3
#### § 312.665 State.

*State* means any of the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Veterans Affairs

# AGENCY:

Office of Research and Development, VA.

# ACTION:

Notice of government owned invention available for licensing.

# SUMMARY:

The invention listed below is owned by the U.S. Government as represented by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and is available for licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 and/or Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) Collaboration under 15 U.S.C. 3710a to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development. Foreign patents are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for U.S. companies and may also be available for licensing.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Technical and licensing information on the invention may be obtained by writing to: Robert W. Potts, Department of Veterans Affairs, Director Technology Transfer Program, Office of Research and Development, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420;                               ( print page 76978)                            fax: (202) 254-0260; e-mail:                         *bob.potts@hq.med.va.gov.*                         Any request for information should include the Number and Title for the relevant invention as indicated below. Issued patents may be obtained from the Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC 20231.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The invention available for licensing is: U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/591,207 “Securing Implantable Neuromuscular Electrodes with Mesh”.

Dated: December 15, 2004.

Anthony J. Principi,

Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.

[FR Doc. 04-28040 Filed 12-22-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P