alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Floyd Pimm, Plaintiff, v. Utilities Contractors, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Wheeler Reflector Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

Order unanimously reversed and motion denied, all without costs. Memorandum: We said in *Donnelly*v. *Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp.*(21 A D 2d 740): “It is not clear that the plaintiff cannot recover from the defendant Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation on the basis of passive negligence. That being so, the second cause of action in the third-party complaint was improperly dismissed as insufficient in law. This is particularly so when the cause of action which was dismissed is viewed in the light of 3013 and subdivision (a) of 3017 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. (See, also, 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. Civ. Prac., par. 3013.03; also *Foley*v. *D’Agostino,*21 A D 2d 60.)” The same legal principles and reasoning apply to the present ease. (Appeal by third party plaintiff from order of Monroe Special Term, granting motion of third-party defendant to dismiss third-party complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Del Vecehio and Marsh, JJ. [50 Misc 2d 1092.]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightwave Logic, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James S. Marcelli, Chief Executive Officer of our Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my 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 result of operations of our Company.



Date:  May 14, 2009

/s/ James S. Marcelli

James S. Marcelli

Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 29.9205 Identification number (farm serial number).

The serial number assigned to an individual farm by the appropriate office of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Case No. 24-C-19-002935 

Argued: March 5, 2020

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

Misc. Docket AG No. 3

September Term, 2019

 

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

v.

MOHAMED ALPHA BAH

 

 

Barbera, C.J.

McDonald

Hotten

Getty

Booth

Biran

Harrell, Glenn T. (Senior Judge,

Specially Assigned)

JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER

Filed: March 12, 2020
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE * IN THE

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

* COURT OF APPEALS

v. * OF MARYLAND

MOHAMED ALPHA BAH * Misc. Docket AG No. 3

September Term, 2019

PER CURIAM ORDER

For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it is this 12th day of March 

2020,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the Respondent, Mohamed 

Alpha Bah be, and he is hereby, disbarred, effective immediately, from the further practice 

of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Mohamed Alpha 

Bah from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland 19-761, shall certify that fact 

to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the 

State; and it is further

ORDERED Respondent shall pay all costs as taxed by the Clerk of this Court, 

including the costs of all transcripts, pursuant to Maryland 19-709, for which sum judgment 

is entered in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland against Mohamed 

Alpha Bah. 

 /s/ Mary Ellen Barbera

Chief Judge
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 292.9 Coordination between State-administered and ITO-administered Summer EBT Programs. ( a ) The ITO Summer EBT agency must receive priority consideration to serve eligible individuals within its service area, as identified in its FNS-approved Plan for Operations and Management (POM) per § 292.8.
( b ) An ITO Summer EBT agency and State Summer EBT agency serving proximate geographic areas must coordinate Summer EBT Program services, which may include a written agreement between both parties. ITO Summer EBT agency and State Summer EBT agency coordination must, at minimum, include the following: ( 1 ) The State Summer EBT agency must share data, including household contact information, indicating those individuals deemed eligible in the ITO Summer EBT agency's service area in a manner and timeframe that will allow the ITO Summer EBT agency to issue program benefits timely;
( 2 ) The ITO Summer EBT agency and the State Summer EBT agency must each provide notice to eligible individuals or households that they may choose to receive Summer EBT Program benefits from either Summer EBT agency, in addition to referral information upon individual or household request; and
( 3 ) The ITO Summer EBT agency and State Summer EBT agency must coordinate to detect and prevent dual participation in the same summer operational period when serving proximate service areas in accordance with § 292.15(d). For all student data exchanged applicable to the Summer EBT Program, the ITO Summer EBT agency and State Summer EBT agency must ensure the confidentiality of such data and data must only be used for program purposes in accordance with § 292.13(o).
( c ) Eligible households choosing to participate in either the ITO-operated Summer EBT Program or the State-operated Summer EBT Program must participate in the same program for the duration of the summer operational period in any given year.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. 3:99cr46/RV

WILLIE JAMES GRIFFIN, JR.

ORDER

The defendant has filed a letter notice of appeal (doc. 363) which this court

construes as a request for a certificate of appealability.1

 Defendant appeals the court’s

denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. (Doc. 362). Unless a certificate of appealability is issued,

the defendant may not take an appeal from the final order denying a Rule 60(b) motion.

Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of Corrections, 317 F.3d 1308, 1312 (11th Cir. 2003). 

A certificate of appealability should not issue in the appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b)

motion in a habeas case unless the petitioner/defendant shows, at a minimum, that it is

debatable among jurists of reason whether the district court abused its discretion, see

Mobley v. Head, 306 F.3d 1096, 1097 (11th Cir. 2002) (“This Court reviews a denial of a

60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion.”). Because the court finds the defendant has not

made the requisite showing for the reasons stated in the court’s order denying the motion

(doc. 362), his request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Defendant has not filed

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The court finds that the appeal is not

taken in good faith and he is not otherwise entitled to so proceed. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3). 

Therefore, defendant shall pay the $455.00 filing fee within thirty days.

DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of August, 2009.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

See Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083 (11TH Cir. 1997) (district courts must treat notices of

appeal in Section 2255 actions as applications for certificates of appealability).
_______________________________________ __ _____________ _______________ _____________ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 129339 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, IN RE PETITION BY TREASURER OF Justices WAYNE COUNTY FOR FORECLOSURE

WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER, Petitioner, and

MICHAEL KELLY and MATTHEW TATARIAN, Intervening Parties-Appellants,

v SC: 129339 COA: 261073 Wayne CC: 02-220192-PZ PRECISION MATERIALS & SERVICES, INC., Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of February 24, 2006, the app lication for leave to appeal the July 11, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals was he ld in abeyance pend ing the decision in Wayne County Treasurer v Perfecting Church (In re Petition by Treasurer of Wayne County for Foreclosure) (Docket No. 129341). On or der of the Court, the ca se having been decided on May 23, 2007, 478 Mich 1 (2007), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not pe rsuaded that the question pr esented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0723 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 30, 2007

Clerk
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)OF THE         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934           FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)OF THE         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934           FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM _________ TO _________

COMMISSION FILE NO. 0-15443

**THERAGENICS CORPORATION ®
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware58-1528626(State of incorporation)(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)5203 Bristol Industrial Way  Buford, Georgia                     30518(Address of principal executive offices)                     (Zip Code)**
Editorial Note on Subpart E of Part 301
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 87 FR 80005, Dec. 29, 2022.

§ 301.45-12 Disqualification of qualified certified applicator to issue certificates. ( a ) Any qualified certified applicator may be disqualified from issuing certificates by the Administrator if he determines that one of the following has occurred: ( 1 ) Such person is not certified by a State and/or the Federal government as a commercial certified applicator under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136i) in a category allowing the application of restricted use pesticides.
( 2 ) Noncompliance with any of the provisions of this subpart or with stipulations agreed on in the compliance agreement between the certified applicator and the Administrator.
( b ) The disqualification is effective upon oral or written notification, whichever is earlier. The reasons for the disqualification shall be confirmed in writing as promptly as circumstances permit, unless contained in the written notification. Any qualified certified applicator who is disqualified from issuing certificates may appeal the decision in writing to the Administrator within ten (10) days after receiving written notification of the disqualification. The appeal shall state all of the facts and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the disqualification was a wrongful action. The Administrator shall grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for his decision as promptly as circumstances permit. If there is a conflict as to any material fact, a hearing shall be held to resolve such conflict. Rules of practice concerning such a hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0088) [58 FR 39423, July 23, 1993, as amended at 59 FR 46902, Sept. 13, 1994; 72 FR 70764, Dec. 13, 2007]
AMENDMENT DATED NOVEMBER 18, 2002



 Exhibit 10.31 
  

							
	 	  	 	  	Raytheon	  	 
				
	Organization	  	 RAYTHEON COMPANY
 Corporate Human
Resources
	  	 	  	 
				
	Date	  	November 18, 2002	  	Memo:	  	KJP:02:033
				
	To	  	J. B. Stephens	  	Distribution:	  	 
				
	From	  	K. J. Peden	  	 	  	 
				
	Subject	  	 Clarification of Stock Options and
 Change in Control
Agreement
	  	 	  	 

  
 This letter is to serve as
clarification as to the Raytheon Company’s intent with regard to the 140,000 Stock Options and 75,000 Restricted Shares awarded to you by the Management Development and Compensation Committee (MDCC) of the Board of Directors upon your hiring at
Raytheon. 
  
 If there is a “Change in Control” of the Raytheon Company
as defined on page 2, paragraph 1.5 of your Change in Control Agreement or your employment is terminated for any reason other than “Cause” as defined on page 1, paragraph 1.4 of your Change in Control Agreement, all Restricted Stock and
Stock Options awarded upon your hiring will be vested in full. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	


	 Keith J. Peden

	 Senior Vice President
 Human Resources
#### § 29.3547 Special factor.

A symbol or term authorized to designate a peculiar side or characteristic which tends to modify a grade. (See Rules 21, § 29.3622; 22, § 29.3623; 23, § 29.3624.)

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SANCHO McKENZIE,

A# 204-736-133,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:19cv462-MW/CAS

WILLIAM BARR, et al.,

Respondents.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 8. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order.” The Clerk shall also 

close the file.

SO ORDERED on February 27, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

Chief United States District Judge
§ 2610.3 Regional organization. ( a ) Each regional Audit Director is responsible to the IG and to the AIG/A for supervising the performance of all OIG auditing activities relating to the Department's domestic and foreign programs and operations within an assigned geographic area. The addresses and telephone numbers of the three Audit regional offices and the territories served are as follows: Audit Region, Address, Telephone Number, and Territory Eastern Region, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Suite 2-2230 (Mail Stop 5300), Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5300, (301) 504-2100; Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Midwestern Region, 8930 Ward Parkway, Suite 3016, Kansas City, Missouri 64114, (816) 926-7667; Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Western Region, 1333 Broadway, Suite 400, Oakland, California 94612, (510) 208-6800; Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Territory of Guam, Trust Territories of the Pacific, and Washington.
( b ) Each regional Special Agent-in-Charge (SAC) is responsible to the IG and to the AIG/I for supervising the performance of all OIG investigative activities relating to the Department's domestic and foreign programs and operations within an assigned geographic area. The addresses and telephone numbers of the five Investigations regional offices and the territories served are as follows:
Investigations Region, Address, Telephone Number, and Territory Midwest Region, 111 N. Canal Street, Suite 325, Chicago, Illinois 60606-7296, (312) 353-1358; Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Northeast Region, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1409, New York, New York 10278-0004, (212) 264-8400; Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Southeast Region, 401 W. Peachtree Street NW., Room 2329, Atlanta, Georgia 30308, (404) 730-3274; Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and the Virgin Islands. Southwest Region, 101 South Main, Room 311, Temple, Texas 76501, (254) 743-6535; Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Western Region, 1333 Broadway, Suite 400, Oakland, California 94612, (510) 208-6860; Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Territory of Guam, Trust Territories of the Pacific, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
EXHIBIT
32





CASCADE
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.





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 on Form 10-Q of Cascade Technologies Corp.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending May 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Dwayne Flett,  as President and Principal Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      July 16, 2009
            By:
            /s/Dwayne
      FlettName:
      Dwayne FlettTitle:
      President (Principal Executive Officer)


A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the
United States Code has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant
to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United
States Code and, accordingly, is not being filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as part of the Report and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of the
Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.)
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

§ 283.6 Answer. ( a ) *Filing and service.* Not later than 60 days after the State agency submits its appeal petition, or within 60 days following service of a ruling in accordance with § 283.5, FNS shall file an answer signed by the FNS Administrator or authorized representative or the attorney of record in the appeal. The attorney may file an appearance of record prior to or simultaneously with the filing of the answer.
( b ) *Contents.* The answer shall clearly admit, deny, or explain each of the allegations of the appeal petition and shall: ( 1 ) Clearly set forth any defense asserted by FNS; or
( 2 ) State that FNS admits all the facts alleged in the appeal petition; or
( 3 ) State that FNS admits the jurisdictional allegations of the appeal petition and neither admits nor denies the remaining allegations and consents to the issuance of an order without further procedure.
( c ) *Default.* Failure to file a timely answer shall be deemed, for purposes of the appeal, an admission of the allegations in the appeal petition and failure to deny or otherwise respond to an allegation of the appeal petition shall be deemed for purposes of the appeal, an admission of said allegation, unless FNS and the State agency have agreed to a consent decision pursuant to § 283.10.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

###### Editorial Note on Part 275

#### Editorial Note:

OMB control numbers relating to this part 275 are contained in § 271.8.

#### § 275.22 Administrative procedure.

Reports on program performance are intended to provide the State an opportunity to determine compliance with program requirements, identify and resolve emerging problems, and assess the effectiveness of actions that have been taken to correct existing problems. States' reports enable FNS to assess the nationwide status of eligibility and basis of issuance determinations, to ensure State compliance with Federal requirements, to assist States in improving and strengthening their programs, and to develop Federal policies. Reports must be submitted in duplicate to the appropriate FNS Regional Office according to the time frames established in §§ 275.20, 275.21, and 275.22 of this part.

[Amdt. 160, 45 FR 15911, Mar. 11, 1980. Redesignated at 52 FR 3410, Feb. 4, 1987]
#### Clara C. Plotkin, Also Known as Clara C. Storper, Respondent, v. Disability and Casualty Inter-Insurance Exchange, Appellant.

Order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and judgment entered thereon, both herein appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event, the judgment vacated and the motion denied. This is an action to recover the proceeds of an accidental death benefit policy issued by defendant to one George Plotkin. By the terms of the policy the proceeds, in the event of accidental death, were payable to plaintiff, the widow, as designated beneficiary. The policy was issued March 15, 1960 in the amount of $250,000. September 17, 1963 at or about 1:30 p.m., Plotkin was killed when a 1956 Plymouth which he was driving on the Taeonic *720State Parkway left the road and struck a bridge abutment about three feet distant. When defendant refused payment, plaintiff sued on the policy. The answer, in addition to general denials, asserted as an affirmative defense that the insurance contract did not cover death, injury or disability *“*Caused by suicide or attempted suicide, whether felonious or not, or intentionally self-inflicted injury, whether then sane or irsane ”, and that the present claim was specifically excluded thereby. The issue is whether Plotkin died an accidental death, with the burden on plaintiff to prove death within the coverage and on defendant to prove the commission of suicide *(Ostrander*v. *Travelers Ins. Co.,*265 N. Y. 467; *Martorella*v. *Prudential Life Ins. Co.,*268 N. Y. 586; *Gardner*v. *Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*246 App. Div. 868). On this record sufficient is shown to warrant a trial of the issue whether the death was accidental or a result of decedent’s willful knowledgeable act. Defendant has done more than merely plead ignorance. It has come forward with a recital of events, of its efforts to ascertain the facts and the result of such efforts which bear directly on the main issue. Factual questions are raised which should be explored upon a trial (CPLR 3212; *Overseas Reliance Tours & Travel Serv.*v. *Same Co.,*17 A D 2d 578). Concur—Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli, Steuer and Rabin, JJ.