alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Louis Greiss, Plaintiff, v. Samuel Feldman, Defendant.

Application ex parte by plaintiff for an order directing the issuance *of*a body execution against the defendant based on an unsatisfied judgment of $20,355.25 against him entered May 2, 1962, in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, on the second cause of action (in the complaint) for embezzlement and conversion. Pursuant to statute ('Civ. Prae. Act, § 66) the application is made to this court by reason of the prior refusal on June 18, 1963 by a Justice of the Supreme Court to grant such ex parte application. The application is granted. Plaintiff seeks the body execution based on his recovery, upon motion, of a summary judgment on said second cause of action for embezzlement and conversion. The order dated May 2, 1962, granting the summary judgment, contained a specific decretal paragraph denying plaintiff’s request for a body execution, the denial being on the ground that such relief “ may only be granted after an actual trial.” On April 8, 1963, this court affirmed an order vacating a prior ex parte order directing the issuance of a body execution (18 A D 2d 1085). While we affirmed the order, in our memorandum decision (18 A D 2d 1085) we clearly indicated: (a) that plaintiff was free to move to have the original order granting the summary judgment “resettled or modified with respect to the body execution”; and (b) that such a change in the order would then permit a consideration of the merits of plaintiff’s application for a body execution. It appears that thereafter plaintiff pursued such remedy. On June 4, 1963, upon his motion, the original order was modified by striking out the decretal paragraph denying the motion for the body execution and by substituting therefor a paragraph denying the motion “ without prejudice to renewal.” Thereupon, plaintiff renewed his motion by applying to a Justice of the Supreme Court in Westchester County for the issuance of a body execution. That Justice, instead of considering the motion on the merits, denied it on the ground that under our former decision (18 A D 2d 1085) the original order “represented the law of the case” despite its modification on June 4, 1963. We are constrained to disagree. The modification was made for the express purpose of permitting the application for the body execution to be renewed, as suggested by our decision. The modification should be given the effect intended. Accordingly, we now hold that plaintiff is entitled to a body execution upon the judgment obtained (as here) on a cause of action for embezzlement and conversion even though such judgment was the result of the granting of a motion for summary judgment pursuant to rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice. “ This is so because the granting of such a motion is the procedural equivalent of a trial” (cf. *Folk*v. *Goodman,*7 N Y 2d 87, 91). Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.15.1



        AMENDMENT TO THE FOUNDER STOCK REPURCHASE AND VESTING AGREEMENT



     This FIRST AMENDMENT to the FOUNDER STOCK REPURCHASE AND VESTING AGREEMENT
(the "First Amendment") is dated April __, 2000 by and among PARADIGM GENETICS,
INC., a DELAWARE corporation (the "Company"), and SANDY STEWART (the "Founder").

                                  WITNESSETH:

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Founder entered into the Founder Stock
Repurchase and Vesting Agreement dated as of February 12, 1998;

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Founder agree to amend the Founder Stock
Repurchase and Vesting Agreement in order to revise certain provisions therein;
and

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants
set forth herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to
be legally bound, hereby amend the Founder Stock Repurchase and Vesting
Agreement and agree as follows:

     1.   The conditions of "Termination of Repurchase Rights" set forth
specifically in Section 5.3(a)(iii) is hereby deleted and replaced with the
following:

     "(iii) Upon the closing of a firm commitment underwritten public offering
     pursuant to an effective registration statement under the 1933 Act covering
     the offer and sale of the Company's Common Stock at a price per share of
     not less than $6.00 (as adjusted for stock splits and the like effected
     after the date of this Agreement) and an aggregate offering price to the
     public of not less than $20,000,000, the Founder shall acquire a vested
     interest in, and the Repurchase Right shall lapse with respect to, the
     Unvested Shares as of such closing."

     2.  This First Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Delaware, without giving effect to its conflicts
of law provisions.

     This First Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts.



                                       1
<PAGE>

     Executed as of the date above written.


PARADIGM GENETICS, INC.:
------------------------


By: _____________________________
Name: __________________________
Title: ___________________________





FOUNDER
-------




_________________________________
Sandy Stewart





                                       2
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Form 10-Q of Jo-Ann Stores Inc., (the
"Company") for the period ending August 3, 2002, I, Alan Rosskamm, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:

(1) such Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended August 3, 2002, 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 such Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
ended August 3, 2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated:  September 17, 2002


                                     /s/ Alan Rosskamm
                                     -----------------
                                     By:   Alan Rosskamm
                                     President and Chief Executive Officer



                                    Page 23
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Parts 1 and 90
          - [WP Docket No. 07-100; Report No. 3167; FRS 17394]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Petitions for reconsideration.

# SUMMARY:

Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Jeffrey S. Cohen, on behalf of APCO International, Ralph A. Haller, on behalf of National Public Safety Telecommunications Council and Chief Jeffrey D. Johnson, on behalf of The Public Safety Spectrum Alliance.

# DATES:

Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before February 24, 2021. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 8, 2021.

# ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Nellie A. Foosaner, Mobility Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-2925 or                         *Nellie.Foosaner@fcc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3167, released January 12, 2021. The full text of the Petitions can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at:                     *http://apps.fcc.gov/​ecfs/​.*                     The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.                          ( print page 8749)    

*Subject:*                     4.9 GHz Band, FCC 20-137, published at 85 FR 76469, November 30, 2020, in WP Docket No. 07-100. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e).                     *See also*47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).                

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     3.                

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene Dortch,

Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-01366 Filed 2-8-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Chung, Appellant.

[831 NYS2d 723]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Ernie, J.), rendered May 6, 2005, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), the jury could have found that the evidence established the elements of assault in the second degree. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly admitted testimony about inculpating statements made by the deceased victim during her struggle with the defendant as excited utterances *(see People v Edwards,*47 NY2d 493, 496 [1979]; *People v Brown,*70 NY2d 513 [1987]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 85 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit *(see People v Smith,*278 AD2d 154 [2000]). Prudenti, PJ., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. DAVID RUSSELL FOLEY, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-10055 D.C. No. 5:09-cr-00670-EJD-1
MEMORANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. DAVID RUSSELL FOLEY, Defendant - Appellant. No. 14-10056 D.C. No. 5:11-cr-00554-EJD-1

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding 

# FILED
APR 17 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.Submitted March 10, 2015 ** San Francisco California Before: McKEOWN, MURGUIA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. David Russell Foley appeals his sentence imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 1349. This Court has juri sdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See United States v. Jacobo Castillo , 496 F.3d 947, 949–50 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). We dismiss the appeal because Foley waived his right to appeal his sentence, and that waiver is valid and enforceable. Foley knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement and waived his right to appeal his sentence. See United States v. Spear, 753 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th Cir. 2011)). Foley argues that the waiver is invalid because (1) the sentence does not comport with the terms of the plea agreemen t; and (2) the sentence is illegal. See United States v. Tsosie , 639 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2011). Both arguments fail. First, the sentence Foley received was below the calculated sentencing guidelines range as determined by the distri ct court and squarely within the specific sentencing terms of the plea agreement. See United States v. Bolinger , 940 F.2d

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2478, 480 (9th Cir. 1991). Second, the se ntence was not illegal, because it was below the statutory maximum of 20 years, did not violate the Constitution, and was supported by the judgment of conviction. See United States v. Fowler , 794 F.2d 1446, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, Foley’s appeal is DISMISSED
.

3
|   | **EXHIBIT 32.1** |
|--------|------------------|

 

STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the annual reports for years ended 2003 and 2004 on Form 10-KSB of Plasticon International, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jim Turek, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:

 

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

 

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

 

/s/ James Turek 

____________________

James Turek, 

Director, President and Chief Executive Officer

 

May 4, 2006

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
AO 121 (6/90)

TO:

COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS

(USPTO)

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OF DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

 In compliance with 35 U.S.C. 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. 1116 you are hereby advised

 that a court action has been filed on the following patent(s)/trademark(s) in the U.S. District Court:

DOCKET NO. 

12cv1555

DATE FILED:

3/5/2011

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS,

EASTERN DIVISION

Plaintiff(s) Automated Facilities

Management Corporation

Defendant(s) IFS North America

TRADEMARK NUMBER DATE OF TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

7,548,970 6/16/2009 Automated Facilities Management

Corporation

In the above-entitled case, the following trademarks(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

 [ ] Amendment [ ] Answer [ ] Cross Bill [ ] Other Pleading

TRADEMARK NUMBER DATE OF TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

1.

2.

3.

In the above-entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgment issued:

DECISION/JUDGMENT

CLERK - MICHAEL W. DOBBINS

Thomas G. Bruton

DEPUTY CLERK:

s/Vettina Franklin

DATE:

3/6/2012

1

Case: 1:12-cv-01555 Document #: 10 Filed: 03/06/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:16
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Robert S. White, Appellant, v. J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

Motion for leave to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted. The appeal may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief. Motion for assignment of counsel denied.
IC 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 931 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2018 

Referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4910 Brighton Boulevard in Denver, Colorado, 

as the ‘‘George Sakato Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

S 931 RFH

1 SECTION 1. GEORGE SAKATO POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 4910 Brighton Boulevard in 

4 Denver, Colorado, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘George Sakato Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘George Sakato Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the Senate March 7, 2018. 

Attest: JULIE E. ADAMS, 

Secretary. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert Reatz, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered October 30, 1944 after a jury trial, convicting him of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny, and imposing sentence upon him as a second felony offender. Judgment affirmed. We are satisfied that the record (which was supplied to the defendant pursuant to this court’s order of April 7, 1964) is sufficient to protect his rights and constitutes a substantial compliance with the statutes *(People*v. *Morganti,*266 App. Div. 362). The lapse of time between this court’s dismissal of the appeal on May 7, 1945 for failure to prosecute and the vacatur of such dismissal on December 9, 1963, resulted from the defendant’s failure to move to vacate the order of dismissal until September, 1962. In any event, no prejudice can be attributed to the hiatus. Nor did the failure of the prosecutor to expand his opening beyond a reading of the indictment constitute reversible error. The guilt of defendant was established. Finally, with respect to the prosecutor’s summation, no factual claim of any prejudicial statement therein has been set forth; the defendant’s mere eonelusory statements will not suffice. (For prior related decisions, see *People*v. *Reatz,*20 A D 2d 552.) Beldock, P. J., TJghetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SCI Illinois Services, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

V.

,John T. Coli, Sr., William Oo)i,.Iohn T. Coli,,Tr,,

and Teamsters Local 7 27,

Case No. lL-cv-7762

Judge Ellis

Defendants.

AGREED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS CAUSE having come before this Court by agreement of the parties and the

Court being ftrlly advised that this case has been settled and that all issues and

controversies have been resolved to thc parties' mutual satisfaction:

IT iS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this matter is dismissed without prejudice

with leave to reinstate anytime on or prior to February L4,2014, otherwise with the

dismissai to be with prejudice as of the next business day without further order of the

Court.

\

oatp: h^-

ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

477'7582
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 13 (Friday, January 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01308]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No.: 200723-0198]


Public Availability of Department of Commerce FY 2018 Service 
Contract Inventory Data

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Public Availability of FY 2018 Service Contract 
Inventories Data.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), the 
Department of Commerce (DOC) is publishing this notice to advise the 
public of the availability of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Service 
Contract Inventory data, a report that analyzes DOC's FY 2017 Service 
Contract Inventory and a plan for the analysis of FY 2018 Service 
Contract Inventory.
    The service contract inventory provides information on service 
contract actions over $150,000 made in FY 2018. The information is 
organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed 
throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance 
with guidance on service contract inventories issued on November 5, 
2010, by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal 
Procurement Policy (OFPP).

ADDRESSES: The Department of Commerce's FY 2018 Service Contract 
Inventory is included in the government-wide inventory available at: 
https://www.acquisition.gov/service-contract-inventory, which can be 
filtered to display the FY 2018 inventory for each agency. In addition 
to the link to access DOC's FY 2018 service contract inventory, the FY 
2017 Analysis Report and Plan for analyzing the FY 2018 data is on the 
Office of Acquisition Management homepage at the following link http://www.osec.doc.gov/oam/. OFPP's guidance memo on service contract 
inventories is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Questions regarding the service 
contract inventory should be directed to Virna Winters, Director for 
Acquisitions Policy and Oversight Division at 202-482-4248 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9dfdec0c7ddccdbdae9cdc6ca87cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f191806011b0a1d1c2f0b000c41080019">[email protected]</span></a>.

Barry E. Berkowitz,
Senior Procurement Executive and Director, Office of Acquisition 
Management.
[FR Doc. 2021-01308 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 12, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22-1848 Lower Tribunal No. F14-0192

________________ 

### John J. Wilson, Jr. , Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida , Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Milton Hirsch, Judge. John J. Wilson, Jr., in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES, and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York v. Ralph V. Sica.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted on the ground that the appeal was not timely taken. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.