alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10(r)

                        ASSIGNMENT AND BILL OF SALE


         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Sealright Co., Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Sealright"), for good and valuable consideration 
to it in hand paid (receipt of which is hereby acknowledged), does hereby 
by these presents, irrevocably sell, assign, transfer and deliver unto 
Sealright Manufacturing - West, Inc., a Missouri corporation ("West"), 
its successors and assigns, all of Sealright's right, title and interest 
in and to all of the operating assets of the Engineering Services and of 
the Packaging Technology Center as described on Exhibit A attached hereto 
and made a part hereof, (the "Assets") wherever such Assets may be located 
and whether or not reflected on the balance sheet of Sealright.

         TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, unto West, its successors and assigns, FOREVER.

         Sealright hereby binds itself, its successors and assigns, to 
forever warrant and defend the title to the Assets unto West, its 
successors and assigns, against the lawful claims of any and all persons 
whomsoever.

         Sealright agrees that it shall execute and deliver or cause to 
be executed and delivered from time to time such instruments, documents, 
agreements, consents and assurances and take such other actions as West 
may require to more effectively convey, transfer to and vest in West and 
to put West in possession of the Assets.

         This instrument shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of 
and be enforceable by Sealright and West and their respective successors 
and assigns.

         The undersigned, West, in connection with the sale, assignment, 
transfer and delivery of the Assets from Sealright, hereby agrees that it 
will accept the Assets.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this instrument 
as of the 31st day of December, 1996.


Sealright Co., Inc.                    Sealright Manufacturing - West, Inc.


By /s/ John T. Carper                  By: /s/ John T. Carper
John T. Carper, Senior Vice President  John T. Carper, Senior Vice President

<PAGE>
STATE OF KANSAS         )
                   ) ss.
COUNTY OF JOHNSON  )

       This instrument was acknowledged before me on the       day of 
December, 1996, by John T. Carper, Senior Vice President of Sealright Co., 
Inc., a Delaware corporation, on behalf of said corporation.

                             _________________________________________
                             Notary Public


My commission expires:

_____________________ 




STATE OF KANSAS         )
                   ) ss.
COUNTY OF JOHNSON  )

         This instrument was acknowledged before me on the       day of 
December, 1996, by John T. Carper, Senior Vice President of Sealright 
Manufacturing - West, Inc., a Missouri corporation, on behalf of said 
corporation.

                             _________________________________________
                             Notary Public


My commission expires:

_____________________
EXHIBIT
23(a)





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-38373, 333-64312, 333-96435, 333-92130, 333-97749,
333-118784, 333-145204, 333-149466 and 333-161301) of Pharmos Corporation of our
report dated February 25, 2009 relating to the financial statements, which
appears in this Form 10-K.
    PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP
 New
York, New York
 February
22, 2010
Chart 1114AHOME | ABOUT             US | CONTACT             | REGIONAL             MANAGERSNautical             Charts & Pubs Surveys             & WrecksGIS             & Other ProductsResearch             & DevelopmentCustomer             ServiceBusiness             OpportunitiesEducation      Chart:       1114A          Edition:       36          Edition       Date: January       2006          Clear       Dates: NM - 7/3/2010     LNM -       6/22/2010      Download RNCNotice ListingFind A Chart       Site-               Click the +/- buttons               and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) to zoom in and out.                             
-               Click the arrow               buttons to pan left/right and up/down.              
-               Drag the navigation               box in the upper left hand corner to move around the chart image.               This chart display or derived product can be used as a               planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational               aid. NOTE: Use the official, full scale NOAA nautical               chart for real navigation whenever possible. These are available               from authorized NOAA nautical chart sales agents. Screen captures               of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart               carriage requirements for regulated commercial vessels under               Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  Adobe Flash Player  is required to view the chart               image.Powered by  Zoomify .
Privacy  |         Disclaimer  |         NOAA's       National Ocean Service  |   NOAA  |         U.S. Department       of Commerce
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 14, 2021

No. 04-20-00598-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF CARLOS Y. BENAVIDES, JR., an 

Incapacitated Person,

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PB6–000081-L2

Honorable Hugo Martinez, Judge Presiding

C O R R E C E D O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On December 3, 2021, appellant Leticia R. Benavides filed a motion to abate this appeal

pending this court’s disposition of appeal number 04-20-00599-CV, which is set for oral

argument on February 24, 2022. Appellee filed a response opposing the abatement on December

8, 2021. Having considered the motion and response, we GRANT the motion to abate.

Accordingly, we WITHDRAW the November 9, 2021 submission date and ABATE this appeal

pending this court’s disposition of appeal number 04-20-00599-CV or further order of this court.

It is so ORDERED December 14, 2021.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT

FILE COPY
#### 232.1108-70 Prohibition of Governmentwide commercial purchase card as a method of payment when the tax on certain foreign procurements applies.

The contracting officer shall not authorize the Governmentwide commercial purchase card as a method of payment during any contract period of performance if the contract includes the clause at FAR 52.229-12, Tax on Certain Foreign Procurements, unless the contract also includes the clause at 252.229-7014, Full Exemption from Two-Percent Excise Tax on Certain Foreign Procurements, indicating that the contractor is fully exempt from the tax.

[87 FR 65517, Oct. 28, 2022]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

U.S. Bank, National Association

as Trustee under the Pooling and Servicing 

Agreement dated as of February 1, 2007, 

GSAMP Trust 2007-NC1, Mortgage PassThrough Certificates, Series 2007-NC1,

 Plaintiff,

V.

Robin Silver, RBS Citizens NA successor in 

interest to St. Paul Federal Bank for Savings

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: 12-cv-02756

Judge: Edmond Chang

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, U.S. Bank, National Association

as Trustee under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2007, GSAMP 

Trust 2007-NC1, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-NC1, by and through its 

attorney, Megan Christine Adams, and moves this Honorable Court for Entry of Judgment of 

Foreclosure Nunc Pro Tunc. In support thereof, Plaintiff states as follows:

1. On March 7, 2013 this Honorable Court entered Judgment of Foreclosure in favor of the 

Plaintiff in the amount of $265,827.65. (See Dkt. # 25).

2. That $265,827.65 figure comes from the Affidavit of Debt by Mekeisha Neil (Dkt. #19-4)

and the Affidavit of Attorney’s fees by Phillip A. Pluister (Dkt.#19-5).

3. However, the $265,827.65 figure did not take into account the per diem interest of

$3,244.74 that the Plaintiff was entitled to as of March 7, 2013.

4. Additionally, a Judgment of Foreclosure was never entered.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that its Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro 

Tunc be Granted, that this Court enter a judgment of foreclosure in favor of Plaintiff effective as 
of March 7, 2013, and enter an award of $269,072.39 as of March 7, 2013.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Megan Christine Adams

Megan Christine Adams ARDC#6312221

Potestivo & Associates, P.C.

223 West Jackson Blvd, suite 610

Chicago, IL 60601

(312)263-0003
Legislation

The Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as  amended provides the statutory authority for the issuance of bonds and the Advisory  board.   

The link below provides the program statute:

- Title III, Part D of the *Higher Education Act of 1965*, as amended

Regulations

- Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)

Guidance

The program is governed by an agreement between the Department of Education and the Designated Bonding Authority (DBA).

Institutional Service Home
#### In the Matter of Rudolph Herrmann, Petitioner, v Arthur Levitt, as Comptroller of the State of New York, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the State Comptroller, which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement. Petitioner, a member of the New York State Employees’ Retirement System (hereinafter System), was employed as a correction officer at the Eastern Correctional Institution when, on February 12, 1975, he injured his back while pulling a switch to open a block of cell doors. His application for disability retirement benefits was disapproved on the basis that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of section 63 of the Retirement and Social Security Law. At a hearing, petitioner testified that while pulling the lever and exerting pressure to open the cell doors, he slipped on garbage (a cigarette butt) on the floor, which caused him to strike his back on a steel control panel box. *958Evidence was also introduced to show that petitioner failed to claim in any previous written reports of the occurrence that he had slipped and fallen on any cigarette butt or other debris as he claimed upon the hearing. Petitioner in this proceeding contends that the determination of the State Comptroller is not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree. The documentary evidence introduced at the hearing consisted of an "Employer’s Report of Injury Form”, filed with the Workers’ Compensation Board, petitioner’s sworn application for accidental disability retirement and a statement signed by petitioner prepared by a representative of the System who interviewed petitioner concerning his application. Nowhere in these documents was any mention made concerning a slip on any garbage relative to the incident. In view of petitioner’s own description of the accident and the lack of any mention of slipping in the written reports of the incident produced at the hearing, there is sufficient support for the Comptroller’s determination that petitioner was injured as a result of the ordinary physical effort required in the performance of his routine duties. Thus, the determination must be confirmed *(Matter of Croshier*v *Levitt,*5 NY2d 259; *Matter of Deos v Levitt,*62 AD2d 1121). Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Staley, Jr., Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
2437.110 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses. ( e ) ( 1 ) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.237-70, Key Personnel, in solicitations and contracts when it is necessary for contract performance to identify Contractor Key personnel.
( 2 ) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.237-73, “Conduct of Work and Technical Guidance,” in all solicitations and contracts for services.
( 3 ) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 2452.237-75, Access to HUD Facilities, in all solicitations and contracts when contractor employees, including subcontractors and consultants, will be required to regularly work in or have access to any HUD facilities (as distinct from nongovernment employee visitors to government facilities).
( 4 ) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.237-77, Temporary Closure of HUD Facilities, in all solicitations and contracts where contractor personnel will be working on-site in any HUD office.
( 5 ) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.237-79, “Post Award Conference,” in all solicitations and contracts for services when the contractor will be required to attend a post-award orientation conference. The Contracting Officer shall indicate whether the contractor must attend the conference in person or via electronic communication. The Contracting Officer shall use Alternate I when the Post Award Conference will be conducted by telephone or video conferencing.
( 6 ) The Contracting Officer shall insert the clause at 2452.237-81, “Labor Categories, Unit Prices Per Hour and Payment,” in all indefinite quantity and requirements solicitations and contracts when level of effort task orders will be issued.
( 7 ) The Contracting Officer shall insert provision 2452.237-82, Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), in Section L of solicitations when controlled unclassified information (“CUI”), as defined in the provision, will be provided to potential offerors for the purpose of preparing offers.
( 8 ) The Contracting Officer shall insert clause 2452.237-83 in Section H, Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), of solicitations and contracts under which contractor and/or subcontractor employees will be granted access to controlled unclassified information (CUI) as defined in the clause.
[77 FR 73531, Dec. 10, 2012, as amended at 81 FR 13752, Mar. 15, 2016; 84 FR 15129, Apr. 15, 2019]
225.7002-3 Contract clauses. Unless an exception at 225.7002-2 applies— ( a ) Use the clause at 252.225-7012, Preference for Certain Domestic Commodities, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services.
( b ) Use the clause at 252.225-7015, Restriction on Acquisition of Hand or Measuring Tools, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, that exceed the threshold at 225.7002-2(a) that require delivery of hand or measuring tools.
( c ) Use the clause at 252.225-7006, Acquisition of the American Flag, in solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, that are for the acquisition of the American flag, with an estimated value that exceeds the threshold at 225.7002-2(a).
[61 FR 50453, Sept. 26, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 20698, Apr. 26, 2002; 68 FR 15627, Mar. 31, 2003; 74 FR 37636, July 29, 2009; 78 FR 37987, June 25, 2013; 80 FR 51749, Aug. 26, 2015; 80 FR 67255, Oct. 30, 2015; 83 FR 65562, Dec. 21, 2018; 87 FR 25147, Apr. 28, 2022; 88 FR 6585, Jan. 31, 2023]
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.1

                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                             DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.

FIRST: The name of this Corporation is Dole Food Company, Inc.

SECOND: Its registered office in the State of Delaware is to be located at 2711
Centerville Road, Suite 400, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle,
Zip Code 19808. The registered agent in charge thereof is Corporation Service
Company.

THIRD: The purpose of the Corporation is to engage in any lawful act or activity
for which corporations may be organized under the General Corporation Law of
Delaware.

FOURTH: The total number of shares of stock which this Corporation is authorized
to issue is: One Thousand Shares (1,000) with a par value of $.001 per share.

FIFTH: The Board of Directors shall have the power to adopt, amend or repeal the
bylaws.

SIXTH: No director shall be personally liable to the Corporation or its
stockholders for monetary damages for any breach of fiduciary duty by such
director as a director. Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, a director shall
be liable to the extent provided by applicable law, (i) for breach of the
director's duty of loyalty to the Corporation or its stockholders, (ii) for acts
or omissions not in good faith or which involve intentional misconduct or a
knowing violation of law, (iii) pursuant to Section 174 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law or (iv) for any transaction from which the director derived an
improper personal benefit. No amendment to or repeal of this Article Sixth shall
apply to or have any effect on the liability or alleged liability of any
director of the Corporation for or with respect to any acts or omissions of such
director occurring prior to such amendment.
| **Fiscal Year**       | **Amount** |
|-----------------------|------------|
| $35,910,000           |
| $38,710,000           |
| $37,710,000           |
| $37,961,635           |
| $39,128,770           |
| $38,815,968           |
| $38,815,968           |
| $38,428,000           |
| $39,301,200           |
| $38,615,000           |
| $43,973,000           |
| $28,643,598           |
| $29,588,000           |
| $28,047,000           |
| $28,047,000           |
| $28,047,000           |
| $30,047,000           |
| $30,047,000 (Request) |
|                  |
#### WEBER v. WALLERSTEIN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 7, 1906.)

Receivers—Appointment—Grounds—Sufficiency—Allegations on Information and Belief.

In an action by a stockholder against a corporation and its officers and others, charging that the assets oí the corporation have been fraudulently diverted, and seeking to have thém restored to the corporation, the statement oí a cause of action alone does not warrant the appointment of a receiver pending the action, and something beyond the mere unsupported statement of -the plaintiff, made on information and belief in the general allegations of the complaint, should appear to warrant the appointment, where the allegations are explicitly denied.

• Appeal from Oneida- County Court.

*853Action by Henry Weber against Edward Wallerstein and others. From an order appointing a temporary receiver, defendants appeal.

Reversed.

Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, NASH, and KRUSE, JJ.

Theodore Baumeister and Frank Gardner, for appellants.

Edwin H. Risley, for respondent.

SPRING, J.

The respondent has commenced this action as a stockholder ot the corporation of Edward Wallerstein & Co., charging that its assets have been fraudulently diverted, and seeks to have them restored to the corporation. This court has held the complaint states the cause of action mentioned. The allegations of the complaint are all set forth on information and belief. A motion was made by the plaintiff upon the complaint and the demurrers thereto for the appointment of a temporary receiver of the corporation. The defendants appeared and by affidavits positively denied the charges of fraud and the dissipation of the corporate assets. In addition the entire transactions which are set out in the complaint on information and belief are explained in these affidavits, and, if the facts are correctly stated therein, the defendants are exculpated of the misconduct imputed to them.

In this situation there should be no receiver appointed pending the action, or, at least, until there is some urgent necessity for that drastic remedy. The statement of a cause of action alone does not warrant the granting of this relief. The receiver is authorized to take possession and control of all the corporate assets, and his incumbency will necessarily oust the corporation of the management of its affairs. Something beyond the mere unsupported statement of the plaintiff made on information and belief in the general allegation of a complaint should appear to warrant the appointment, where the allegations are explicitly denied. Kieley v. Barron, etc., 87 App. Div. 317, 84 N. Y. Supp. 306; Platt v. Elias, 101 App. Div. 518, 91 N. Y. Supp. 1079.

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements of this appeal to each of said defendants appealing separately, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. So ordered. All concur.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ann Kearney, Respondent, v. Frank Shattuck, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant worked in a restaurant and testified that on December 4, 1957 she wrenched her arm when she slipped on the floor while lifting or moving plates. There is some proof that on the following day claimant slipped and fell due to the pain in her arm. It is not entirely clear whether this slipping was on ice; but even if it were, claimant attributed it to the pain. “ She [physician in employer’s medical department] sent me home in pain that I didn’t know where I was going * ” * I slipped when I was going home with the pain ”. Medical examination later disclosed a dislocation of the shoulder joint. There is medical proof that both events, the original injury at work and the second injury were related to the ultimate physical condition; and even though the fall on December 5 after slipping was the main, or even the sole, cause of the dislocation, it has been sufficiently attributed as a consequence of the first injury to sustain the decision. Decision and award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board.
#### 3.502-3 Contract clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.203-7, Anti-Kickback Procedures, in solicitations and contracts exceeding $150,000, other than those for commercial products or commercial services (see part 12).

[60 FR 48235, Sept. 18, 1995, as amended at 61 FR 39190, July 26, 1996; 85 FR 40067, July 2, 2020; 86 FR 61020, Nov. 4, 2021]