alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(January 9, 1967)

#### D & E Development Corp., Appellant-Respondent, v. Parkchester Clothes Corp. et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 13, 1966, reversed, on the law and the facts. *659with costs to plaintiff; specific performance directed in favor of plaintiff, with adjustments to be made as of the date when title is transferred to plaintiff; counterclaim dismissed; and action remitted to Special Term for the making and entry of judgment accordingly. In our opinion the parties should be bound by their stipulation for specific performance made in open court. The stipulation should not have been set aside without a showing of good cause therefor *(Campbell*v. *Bussing,*274 App. Div. 893). No good cause existed for relieving the parties of their stipulation; moreover, neither party made application to be relieved of the stipulation. Adjustments should be made as of the closing date when title is transferred to plaintiff. The counterclaim of defendants was properly dismissed by the trial court. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 3701.3 Requests for records.

Requests for records of ERS under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3) shall be made in accordance with § 1.5 of this title and submitted to the FOIA Coordinator, Information Staff, ARS, REE, USDA, Mail Stop 5128, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705-5128; Telephone (301) 504-1640 or (301) 504-1655; TTY-VOICE (301) 504-1743; Facsimile (301) 504-1648; e-mail *vherberger@ars.usda.gov* or *shutchison@ars.usda.gov.* The FOIA Coordinator is delegated authority to make determinations regarding such requests in accordance with § 1.3(c) of this title.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 95-50789

 Summary Calendar

_______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROY JUAREZ GODINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(SA-94-CR-295-(2))

_________________________________________________________________

August 29, 1996

Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Godinez was sentenced to two 135-month

concurrent terms of imprisonment after a jury convicted him of

conspiracy to distribute and distribution of cocaine. On appeal,

his court-appointed counsel argues that Godinez’s offense level

should be reduced by two because the evidence was insufficient to

establish that Godinez was a manager in the offense. Attorney
2

Padilla also asserts that Godinez urged him to argue the

sufficiency of evidence to convict, but pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Padilla concludes that issue

is meritless. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

The status of manager under the Guidelines is reviewed in

this court for clear error. Based on the testimony of codefendants and the entirety of the transactions in which Godinez

was implicated, there is no error in the court’s finding that

Godinez was a manager. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c).

Moreover, the evidence was sufficient to convict Godinez.

Even though much of the incriminating testimony was given by codefendants who had pleaded guilty at the time of Godinez’s trial,

the jury was entitled to credit their testimony in whole or in

part. Confirmation of Godinez’s participation came from the

testimony of the undercover officer.

The court notes that court-appointed defense counsel

seems to have misunderstood the requirements of Anders in briefing

this appeal. Anders holds that after conscientiously reviewing the

record and identifying to the court any potential legal issues on

appeal, counsel may move to withdraw if he determines that an

appeal would be “wholly frivolous.” Anders, 368 U.S. at 744. If

counsel believes even one issue is meritorious, as he did here,

briefing pursuant to Anders is not allowed. Notwithstanding

counsel’s error in this case, the court was alerted to and did
3

consider the sufficiency of the evidence as suggested by appellant

Godinez to his counsel. Counsel’s misinterpretation of Anders in

this case was harmless error at best.

AFFIRMED.
Amendment No.2 to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.5 
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 WHEREAS, Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (“Company”) and Donald Colvin (“Executive”) entered into an Employment
Agreement dated as of May 26, 2005 (“Agreement”) and as previously amended; 
 WHEREAS, all defined terms used herein
shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement unless specifically defined herein; 
 WHEREAS, as of November 12, 2008 the
Compensation Committee (“Committee”) of the Board of Directors of ON Semiconductor Corporation considered and approved an increase, effective January 4, 2009, of the maximum target bonus percentage for the Executive from 65% to 75% of
his Base Salary during the applicable Performance Cycle under a bonus Program established and approved by the Committee and/or Board; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive now wish to amend the Agreement to reflect the increase to the maximum target bonus percentage to 75% consistent with the Committee’s approvals and make certain related conforming changes
to the Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for mutual consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Agreement is hereby
amended as follows: 
 1. Effective January 4, 2009, Section 2(b) of the Agreement related to “Compensation” is hereby amended by
replacing such section in its entirety with the following: 
 “(b) In addition to the Base Salary, during the Employment
Period, the Executive shall be eligible to participate in the bonus program established and approved by the Board (the “Program”) and, pursuant to the Program, the Executive may earn a bonus (the “Bonus”) on an annual or other
performance period basis (a “Performance Cycle”) of up to a maximum target of 75% of Base Salary earned during the applicable Performance Cycle or an additional amount as approved by the Board under the Program and in each case based on
certain performance criteria; provided that the Executive is actively employed by the Company on the date the Bonuses are paid under the Program, except as provided in Section 5(a) herein. The Bonus may be paid annually or more frequently
depending upon the Performance Cycle, as determined by the Board and pursuant to the Program. The Bonus will be specified by the Board, and the Bonus will be reviewed at least annually by the Board.” 
  

 1 








 2. This Agreement shall amend only the provisions of the Agreement as set forth herein. Those provisions of the Agreement
not expressly amended shall be considered in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and the Company have executed
this Amendment as of the 30 day of April 2009. 
  

									
	COMPANY:	 		 	Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/    COLLEEN MCKEOWN

		 		 		 	Name:	 	Colleen McKeown
		 		 		 	Title:	 	Senior Vice President of Human Resources
			
	EXECUTIVE:	 		 	Donald Colvin, in his individual capacity
					
		 		 		 	By:	 	 /s/    DONALD COLVIN

		 		 		 	Name:	 	Donald Colvin
		 		 		 	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
 Officer and
Treasurer


  

 2
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 annual report of Arrow Resources Development, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Peter J. Frugone, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



| | ii. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|/s/ Peter J. Frugone                                        
|Peter J. Frugone Principal Accounting Officer April 17th2006
# Subpart 22.12 - [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**Part 22 - Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-1462, -1463, -1464, -1465

TAURUS IP, LLC (now known as Manufacturing System Technologies, LLC),

Plaintiff/Third Party DefendantAppellant,

and

ORION IP, LLC (now known as Clear With Computers LLC)

and ERICH SPANGENBERG,

Third Party Defendant-Appellants,

v.

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, CHRYSLER FINANCIAL, LLC, and

DAIMLERCHRYSLER COMPANY, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

CHRYSLER HOLDING, LLC,

Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee,

and

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, INC. and CHRYSLER LLC,

Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs-Cross

Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of

Wisconsin in case no. 07-CV-158, Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb.
2008-1474, -1477

TAURUS IP, LLC (now known as Manufacturing System Technologies, LLC),

Defendant-Appellant,

v.

HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,

Defendant-Cross Appellant,

and

REEBOK INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,

Defendant,

and

POLO RALPH LAUREN CORP.,

Defendant,

and

MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of

Wisconsin in case no. 07-CV-477, Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb.

ON MOTION

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Chrysler, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., Michelin North America, Inc., and

Hyundai Motor America respond to the court's May 19, 2009 order and request a stay

of proceedings with regard to Chrysler pending disposition of Chrysler's bankruptcy

proceedings but to continue proceedings with regard to all other parties. Taurus IP,

2008-1462 et al.	2
LLC, Orion IP, LLC, and Erich Spangenberg also respond to the court's order and

request that the court stay all proceedings with regard to all parties pending bankruptcy

proceedings.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The briefing schedule is stayed pending disposition of the bankruptcy

proceedings as to all parties and proceedings. The parties are directed to notify the

court within 14 days from the date of final disposition of the bankruptcy proceedings.

FOR THE COURT

JUL 23 2009

Date

cc:	Jon E. Wright, Esq.

Elizabeth A. Wiley, Esq.

Mitchell G. Stockwell, Esq.

Gene C. Schaerr, Esq.

Michael E. Jones, Esq.

s19

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

US. COURTFID OL

F APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

JUL 2 3 2009

JAN HORI3ALY

CLERK

/s/ Jan Horbalv

2008-1462 et al.	3
Exhibit 13.1

Certification by the Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of New
Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended May 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Minhong Yu,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: October 19, 2009



By:

/s/    Michael Minhong YuName:

Michael Minhong YuTitle:

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 5

- 00 452

- C V



### ____________________

MICHAEL WAYNE OSBORNE

, Appellant

V.

NATHAN REYNOLDS JR. , Appellee

________ ________________________________________________________________

On A ppeal from the 172nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. E

- 197,332

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Wayne Osborne filed a notice of appeal from interlocutory orders

denying a motion for default judgment and denying a motion for a bench warrant.

We notified the parties that our jurisdiction was not apparent from the notice of

appeal and that the a ppeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless a

response demonstrating this Court’s jurisdiction was filed by November 30, 2015.

The appellant did not file a written response.2 Generally, an appeal may be t aken only from a final judgment. Lehman n v.

Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be

appealed only if a statute authorizes an accelerated appeal

. Bally Total Fitness

Corp. v. Jackson , 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001) ; see Tex. R. App. P. 28.1

. The

appellant has not filed a response showing that the trial court has signed a final

judgment or an order that is appealable at this time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. We

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISS ED.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on December 22 , 2015

Opinion Delivered December 23 , 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Isaac Rosenbloom, as Executor of Abraham Rosenbloom, Deceased, Respondent-Appellant, v Robert Z. Srogi, as Commissioner of Assessment of the City of Syracuse, Appellant-Respondent. In the Matter of the Estates of Isaac Rosenbloom and Two Others, Deceased, Respondents-Appellants, v Robert Z. Srogi, as Commissioner of Assessment of the City of Syracuse, Appellant-Respondent.

Orders and judgment unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, with costs to petitioner, in accordance with the following memorandum: We find no error in the court’s determination of taxable values. The court erred in granting additional allowances under CPLR 8303 in these tax review proceedings (see *Grant Co. v Srogi,*71 AD2d 457; *Matter of Rice*v *Srogi,*70 AD2d 764, 765), and such allowances must be deleted from the orders and judgment. (Appeals from *719orders and judgment of Onondaga Supreme Court—Real Property Tax Law, art 7.) Present—Simons, J. P., Schnepp, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 74733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Final 
Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the 
Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS 
decision to designate a class of employees from the Ames Laboratory, 
Ames, Iowa, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under 
the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 
2000. On October 6, 2010, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the 
Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an 
addition to the SEC:

    All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor 
agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors who worked in any 
area of the Department of Energy facility at the Ames Laboratory 
from January 1, 1955 through December 31, 1960, for a number of work 
days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely 
under this employment, or in combination with work days within the 
parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in 
the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on November 5, 2010, as provided 
for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on November 5, 2010, 
members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, 
became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Interim Director, 
Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, 
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can 
also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d79394968497949394f9909881"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3a7e797b697a797e79147d756c">[email protected]</span></a>.

 John Howard,
 Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-30205 Filed 11-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### § 51.13 Basis of service.

Inspection and certification service for quality and/or condition shall be based upon the appropriate standards promulgated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, applicable standards prescribed by the laws of the State where the particular product was produced, specifications of any governmental agency, written buyer and seller contract specifications, or any written specification by an applicant which is approved by the Administrator: *Provided,* That if such product is regulated pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*), or the comparable laws of any State, such inspection and certification shall be on the basis of the standards, if any, prescribed in, or pursuant to, the marketing order and/or agreement effective thereunder.
Exhibit 34.1





Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



To the Board of Directors
Protective Life Insurance Company:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria that Protective Life Insurance Company complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the Funding Agreement Registered Notes Platform (the Platform), as of December 31, 2006 and for the year then ended, excluding (i) the criteria which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by them with respect to the Platform and (ii) the servicing activities that are applicable to the Platform but are excluded from the scope of management's assertion and are not reported on herein, as indicated in Appendix A of Management's Assertion on Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria.  Appendix B to management's assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Birmingham, Alabama
March 16, 2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            3265
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       15
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  3515
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    3515
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              129
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        3386
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      3515
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    83
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (114)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (114)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (114)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)


</TABLE>