alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 38 40 42 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/17 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
Exhibit 10.3.e.ii**AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**     This Amendment to Employment Agreement is hereby entered into as of December 29, 2006 by andamong Cedar Shopping Centers, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Corporation”), Cedar ShoppingCenters Partnership, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”) and Nancy Mozzachio(the “Executive”).**W I T N E S S E T H:**     WHEREAS, the Corporation, the Partnership and the Executive entered into that certainEmployment Agreement dated as of August 1, 2003, as presently in effect (the “EmploymentAgreement”); and     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation (on the Corporation’s own behalf, and asthe sole general partner of the Partnership) approved the modification to certain provisions of theEmployment Agreement;     NOW THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound the parties hereto agree as follows:     1.     Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety asfollows:“2.1 The term of employment shall end October 31, 2008, unless sooner terminated asprovided in this Agreement.”     2.     Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety asfollows:“3.1 The Partnership shall pay to the Executive for the services to be rendered by theExecutive hereunder to the Corporation and the Partnership a base salary at the rate of$225,000 per annum. The base salary shall be payable in accordance with the Corporation’sor Partnership’s normal payroll practices, but not less frequently than twice a month. Suchbase salary will be reviewed at least annually and may be increased (but not decreased) bythe Board of Directors of the Corporation in its sole discretion. The Board of Directors ofthe Corporation in its sole discretion may grant to the Executive a bonus to be paid by theCorporation or Partnership, at any time and from time to time.”
 

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement as of thedate first above written.      CEDAR SHOPPING CENTERS, INC.
###### Editorial Note on Part 250

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

#### §§ 250.506-250.508 [Reserved]
#### MARCUS v. STEIN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Personal Property—Injuries—Damages—Evidence.

In an action for injuries to personal property, evidence as to the value of. the injured goods to plaintiff, as distinguished from the market value of the goods in their damaged condition, was inadmissible.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fourth District.

Action by Max Marcus against Adolph Stein. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Sands & Wasservogel, for appellant.

Isaac Cohen, for respondent.

BLANCHARD, J.

This action is brought by the plaintiff, a tenant of a store on the ground floor of the building in which the defendant, a dentist, occupies the floor above. The plaintiff claims that certain of his-merchandise was damaged by water which overflowed from a faucet attached to a dentist’s chair in the premises occupied by the defendant. The defendant claims that error was committed by the court below in'its ruling on questions of evidence as follows: The plaintiff had given evidence as to the value of certain merchandise claimed by him to have been damaged. The following then ensued:

> “Q. What became of all these goods? A. I have them. Q. What are they worth? (Defendant’s counsel objected as calling for a conclusion. The Court: Objection sustained.) Q. Are those goods worth as much now as they were before? (Defendant’s Counsel: Objected to as incompetent and improper. The Court: Objection overruled. Exception.) A. No, sir. Q. They are not? A. No, sir. Q. Are they of any use to you at all? (Defendant’s Counsel: Objected as incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant. .The Court: Objection overruled. Exception.) A. No, sir. * * * Q. In all, you *971say the goods are not worth—or you say that the goods are worth nothing to you. What damage did you sustain? (Defendant’s counsel objected as calling for a conclusion. The Court: Objection overruled. Exception.) A. $228.”

In our opinion this evidence was clearly incompetent. It was immaterial whether the water damaged goods were of use to the plaintiff. The question was, what were the goods worth in the market in their damaged condition?

Judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event. All concur.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





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




2. The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




Date:May
                1, 2007
            By:
            /s/ *David
              A. Dodge*Name: David
                A. DodgeTitle: Chief
                Financial Officer and
                Principal
                  Accounting Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. and will be
      retained by NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Trustees and Shareholders of

U-Store-It Trust:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-167623, 333-143126, 333-143125, 333-143124, 333-134684 and 333-119987) and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-156463, 333-141709 and 333-141710) of U-Store-It Trust and subsidiaries of our report dated March 1, 2011, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of U-Store-It Trust as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, and the related financial statement schedule, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010, which reports appear in the accompanying Form 10-K of U-Store-It Trust.

 
| /s/ KPMG LLP               |
|----------------------------|
|                       |
|                       |
| Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |
| March 1, 2011         |

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 9 , 2016 

# Order

Clerk March 9 , 2016

15 2875

ASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

CORPORATION

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

, SC: 15 2875

v COA: 32 0717

Oakland CC: 2009

- 09 7554

- C K

COMMERCE 8800, LLC, CRYSTAL

HALLEY, Trustee of the HARPER H.

CUNNINGHAM & SALLY ANN

CUNNINGHAM TRUST, and REPUBLIC

BANK

, Defendant s

, and

JIMM F. WHITE

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. _________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal is considered, and the

application is DISMISSED with prejudice and without costs.
Editorial Note on Part 1206
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

§ 1206.156 What are my reporting requirements under a non-arm's-length transportation contract? ( a ) You must use a separate entry on form ONRR-2014 to notify ONRR of an allowance based on non-arm's-length transportation costs that you or your affiliate incur(s).
( b ) ( 1 ) For new non-arm's-length transportation facilities or arrangements, you must base your initial deduction on estimates of allowable transportation costs for the applicable period.
( 2 ) You must use your or your affiliate's most recently available operations data for the transportation system as your estimate. If such data is not available, you must use estimates based on data for similar transportation systems.
( 3 ) Section 1206.158 applies when you amend your report based on your actual costs.
( c ) ONRR may require you or your affiliate to submit all data used to calculate the allowance deduction. You can find recordkeeping requirements in parts 1207 and 1212 of this chapter.
#### Joseph G. Bemis *vs.*Board of County Commissioners of Rice County.

June 26, 1876.

Sheriff — Reward for Recapture of Escaped Prisoner, — A sheriff has no power to bind his *county*by the offer *of*a reward for the recapture of a person charged with crime who has escaped from the county jail.

This action was brought in the district coxxx-t for Bice county, aixd tried before *Loud,*J., and a jury, who found a verdict for plaiixtiff, oxx which judgment was entered, and defexxdant appealed.

*George N. Baxter,*for appellant.

*Gordon B. Gole,*for respondent.

Gilfillan, C. J.

Two prisoners, coxxfined in the couxxty jail of Bice couxxty upon a criminal charge, having escaped, the sheriff of the county offered a reward for their recapture. They were recaptured aixd delivered to the sheriff by the plaintiff, who brings this action against the county to recover the reward. It was admitted by the defexxdant, on the trial, that if the sheriff could, under any circumstances, ■offer a reward for the apprehension of a felon, bixxdixxg upon the public, the offer iix this case was right axxd proper, axxd reasonable in amount.

The sole questioxx ixx the case is, caxx a sheriff bixxd his couxxty by an offer of a reward for the arrest of persons, charged with criminal offences, escapixxg from his custody?

*74No such authority, either express or implied, is to befo und in the statute. At common law the powers and authority of a sheriff were much more extensive than they are now. But no decision or text-book is cited, and we think none can be found, which even hints at any power in the sheriff to bind -either his county or the crown by the offer of a reward for the apprehension of criminals. It was his duty, and he had authority, to pursue and take all traitors, murderers, felons, and other misdoers, and commit them to jail for safe custody, and for this purpose he might command all the .people of his county to attend him. No-other means for the performance of his duty in arresting criminals seem to have been placed at his disposal except the *posse comitatus.*As the power to bind the county by such an offer is not to be found in the statute nor the common law, it does not exist.

Judgment reversed.
February 19, 2013 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building ground floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, D.C. 20590 To whom it may concern:___ _ I· 

## sn I' LJ

I would like to request an extension on Exemption No. , Docket No. 10297 FAA2011-0637. Our present exemption terminates on June 30, 2013. Silverhawk Aviation Academy employees are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all time while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. Sincerely,

Catherine Weber Owner ,; "
·: .. •.: ...**t.:!.,l.,•:__:~;~ ~**  ....**~. ~-**  •**~.** • ,t ; ,

4505 Aviation Way, Caldwell, ID 83605

208-453-8577 Fax 208-453-1538 www .:silverhawkaviation.net email: fly@silverhawkaviation.net

..**~t,_** . .. . . . . i\

4.'
Exhibit 31.2








SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION





I, Peter J. Pounds, certify that: 1





|   |                                                                                                                                 
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of General Communication, Inc. for the period ended September 30, 2013; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.




Date: March 6, 2014/s/ Peter J. PoundsPeter J. PoundsSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary





1 Paragraph 3 is omitted since no financial statements are included in the amended filing. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are omitted since the amendment does not contain an amendment to the Regulation S-K Item 307 and 308 disclosures regarding the evaluation of disclosure controls and procedures and internal controls over financial reporting.
§ 203.51 How do I apply for end-of-life royalty relief? You must submit a complete application and the required fee to the appropriate BSEE Regional Director. Your BSEE regional office will provide specific guidance on the report formats. A complete application for relief includes: ( a ) An administrative information report (specified in § 203.83) and
( b ) A net revenue and relief justification report (specified in § 203.84).
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005
of Saifun Semiconductors Ltd. (the Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Commission) on the date hereof (the
Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Boaz Eitan, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Company, certify, that:

(1)        the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

| |  | By: /s/ Boaz Eitan
Dr. Boaz Eitan Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 2, 2007

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Saifun Semiconductors Ltd. and will
be retained by Saifun Semiconductors Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.



---

---
#### Eugene A. Marchini, Jr., Respondent, v Peter F. Maiorano et al., Appellants. Faith V. Sklute, Respondent-Appellant, v Eugene A. Mar*981chini, Jr., Respondent, and Evelyn M. Maiorano et al., Appellants.

In consolidated negligence actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., (1) defendants Maiorano appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated September 16, 1977, which, after a jury trial limited to the issue of liability only, is against them and in favor of plaintiffs and (2) plaintiff Sklute appeals from so much of the interlocutory judgment as fails to find in her favor as against defendant Marchini. Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by defendants Maiorano jointly to plaintiffs and one bill of costs payable by plaintiff Sklute to defendant Marchini. These actions arise from a collision between a motorcycle operated by Eugene Marchini and an automobile driven by Peter Maiorano and owned by Evelyn Maiorano. Faith Sklute was a passenger on the motorcycle. Both vehicles had been heading north prior to the accident. The collision occurred when Mr. Marchini attempted to pass the Maiorano automobile in the left-hand (southbound) lane and Mr. Maiorano executed a left turn. There is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Mr. Maiorano was negligent in failing to signal his turn and in not checking his side view mirror prior to turning. Although the evidence on the point was in conflict, a jury could also properly conclude that Marchini had not been speeding at the time of the accident and had not otherwise been negligent. Latham, J. P., Damiani, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of Appeals2903631-MAY-201301:42 PM
#### FLYNN, Respondent, v. McDERMOTT, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 15, 1905.)

Action by Paul B. Flynn, as executor of the last will and testament of Mary M. McDermott, deceased, against Michael F. McDermott, as executor of the last will and testament of John McDermott, deceased.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of Kellogg, J., at Special Term. 89 N. Y. Supp. 506.

HOOKER, J., not voting.
**Fiscal      Year 2007 Annual Incentive Plan Criteria**

| Level  | Target                Award Percentage |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                   |
| CEO    | 110%                                   |
| 13     | 95%                                    |
| 12     | 75%                                    |
| 11     | 65%                                    |

| Level                           | Corporate                / Business Unit Weight |
|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
|                            |                                            |
| CEO                and Level 13 | 100%                / 0%                        |
| 11-12                           | 80%                / 20%                        |

| Payout                Multiple of Target Award Percentage                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                               |
| Threshold                         25% |
| Target   100%                                                       |
| Distinguished  150%                                                      |
| Super-Distinguished                  200%                                |
EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this amendment to the Form 10-K of Calamos Asset Management, Inc.; and
 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;
  /s/ John P. Calamos, Sr.John P. Calamos, Sr.Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and Co-Chief Investment Officer
§ 1229.124 Documentation standards. Every audit performed by a State under a delegation of authority must meet certain documentation standards. In particular, detailed workpapers must be developed and maintained. ( a ) *Workpapers* are defined to include all records obtained or created in performing an audit.
( b ) Each audit performed varies in scope and detail. As a result, the audit team must determine the best presentation of the workpapers for a particular audit. The following general standards of workpaper preparation are consistent with the goal of achieving proper documentation while maintaining sufficient flexibility. ( 1 ) All relevant information obtained orally must be promptly recorded in writing and incorporated in the workpapers.
( 2 ) Workpapers must be complete and accurate in order to provide support for findings and conclusions.
( 3 ) Workpapers should be clear and understandable without the need for supplementary oral explanations. The information they contain must be clear, complete, and concise, so that anyone using the workpapers will be able to readily determine their purpose, the nature and scope of the work done, and the conclusions drawn.
( 4 ) Workpapers must be legible and as neat as practicable. They must meet standards which allow their use as evidence in judicial and administrative proceedings.
( 5 ) The information contained in workpapers should be restricted to matters which are materially important and relevant to the objectives established for the assignment.
( 6 ) Workpapers must be in sufficient detail to permit a subsequent independent execution of each audit procedure, assuming the target company retains its accounting documentation.
1 NUMBER 13

- 16

- 002 92

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

ALFREDO ARANDA AGUIR RE

, Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA AGUIRRE

, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 197th Court

of Cameron County, Texas.



### ORDER

Before Justices Garza , Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Appell ee ’ s counsel, Richard J.W. Nunez , has filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel. We grant said motion. Pursuant to Rule 6.5(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure, counsel is directed to notify appell ee , in writing, of any previously undisclosed2

deadlines and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court.

Appell ee is directed to notify the Court promptly if s he retains new counsel on

appeal by filing a notice including that attorney ’ s name, mailing address, telephone

number, facsimile number, email address, and State Bar of Texas identification number.

See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 6. In the interim, the Court expects this appeal to proceed

as per the appellate rules. Appell ee is expected to comply with all applicable deadlines

and filings should comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed this

7 th day of October, 2016.