alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30442 17-SEP-2012 04:32 PM

NO. SCWC-30442 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. ALBERT VILLADOS, JR., also known as ALBERTO VILLADOS, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 30442; CR. NO. 08-1-0115) ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nishimura, assigned by reason of vacancy; with Acoba, J., dissenting separately) Upon consideration of Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Albert Villados, Jr.’s letter, which was received and filed on September 6, 2012, requesting an extension of time for reconsideration of dismissal of the application for writ of certiorari, and the records and files herein, our rules do not allow for reconsideration of the acceptance or rejection of an application for certiorari. Hawai ' i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 40.1(h). Therefore,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for extension of time for reconsideration of the order dismissing the application for writ of certiorari is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, September 17, 2012. Albert Villados, Jr., /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald petitioner, pro se /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Rhonda A. Nishimura

2
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended
      March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) of Patient Safety Technologies, Inc. (the
“Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, William B. Horne, as the Chief Executive and Financial Officer of
      the
      Registrant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge,
      that:





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




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


Dated:
                May 21, 2007
            By:
            /s/
                William B. HorneWilliam
                B. HorneChief
                Executive and Financial Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered January 15, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05 - 12 - 01323 - CR No. 05 - 12 - 01349 - CR ERIC JERMOND DAVIS , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court Dallas Co unty, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F11 - 71411 - W , F11 - 59063 - W 

### O RDER The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and

recommen dations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s pre sence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAY S of the date of this order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ CAROLYN WRI GHT CHIEF JUSTICE
#### § 3256.500 Who in the NEA determines that a recipient other than an individual violated the requirements of this part?

The Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts is the official authorized to make the determination under 2 CFR 182.500.
§ 200.326 Bonding requirements. For construction or facility improvement contracts or subcontracts exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity may accept the bonding policy and requirements of the non-Federal entity provided that the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity has made a determination that the Federal interest is adequately protected. If such a determination has not been made, the minimum requirements must be as follows: ( a ) A bid guarantee from each bidder equivalent to five percent of the bid price. The “bid guarantee” must consist of a firm commitment such as a bid bond, certified check, or other negotiable instrument accompanying a bid as assurance that the bidder will, upon acceptance of the bid, execute such contractual documents as may be required within the time specified.
( b ) A performance bond on the part of the contractor for 100 percent of the contract price. A “performance bond” is one executed in connection with a contract to secure fulfillment of all the contractor's requirements under such contract.
( c ) A payment bond on the part of the contractor for 100 percent of the contract price. A “payment bond” is one executed in connection with a contract to assure payment as required by law of all persons supplying labor and material in the execution of the work provided for in the contract.
#### § 170.300 Federal agency.

*Federal agency* means a Federal agency as defined at 5 U.S.C. 551(1) and further clarified by 5 U.S.C. 552(f).

[85 FR 49526, Aug. 13, 2020]
[Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. letterhead]

                                                                   July 21, 2006

Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC
222 Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 9-112
Chicago, IL 60654

      Re: April 12, 2006 Common Stock Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase
          Agreement")

Dear Sirs:

      As you are aware, we have scheduled an annual meeting of stockholders to
be held in September 2006 at which, inter alia, we will seek stockholder
approval to amend our certificate of incorporation by increasing our authorized
shares of common stock from 100 million to 200 million.

      To maximize our chances of obtaining such approval it is necessary to
limit the number of shares possibly issuable under the Purchase Agreement from
the newly authorized shares. Accordingly, by this letter, we hereby request that
the Purchase Agreement be amended to limit the number of shares issuable under
the Purchase Agreement (inclusive of the Commitment Shares) to 27,386,723 shares
(representing 12,386,723 shares already issued or reserved for issuance under
the Purchase Agreement plus 15 million shares).

      Please confirm your agreement with the foregoing, by executing a copy of
this letter in space provided below. Upon your execution of this letter, the
Purchase Agreement shall be so amended.

                                        Sincerely,


                                        s/
                                        --------------------------------
                                        Ransom W. Etheridge,
                                        Secretary

The foregoing is agreed to this 21st day of July, 2006:

      Fusion Capital Fund II, LLC


By: s/
    --------------------------------------------
H. Res. 605

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

September 6, 2006.

Whereas Preston Robert ‘‘Bob’’ Tisch was born on April 

29th, 1926, in the Bensonhurst neighborhood of Brooklyn to a middle class family; 

Whereas Bob Tisch attended Erasmus Hall High School in 

Brooklyn for 3 years and DeWitt Clinton High School in 

the Bronx for one year; 

Whereas Bob Tisch earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics from the University of Michigan in 1948; 

Whereas in 1948 Bob Tisch joined a family hotel business 

venture, the Laurel-in-the-Pines in Lakewood, New Jersey, establishing the foundation for his success; 

Whereas from 1946 through 1959 Bob and Larry Tisch built 

a thriving hotel chain spanning New York, New Jersey, 

and Florida; 

Whereas in 1959 Bob and Larry Tisch acquired a controlling 

interest in Loew’s Theatres, consisting of 102 movie theatres and a New York radio station, WMGM; 

Whereas the investment in Loew’s Theatres formed the basis 

for the modern-day Loews Corporation, which was created in 1969; 
2

•HRES 605 EH 

Whereas Bob and Larry Tisch built Loews Corporation into 

one of the largest diversified financial corporations in the 

United States; 

Whereas in 1986 Bob Tisch was appointed by the Board of 

Governors of the United States Postal Service as Postmaster General under the administration of President 

Ronald Reagan; 

Whereas in 1991 Bob Tisch purchased a 50 percent share in 

the New York Giants Football Club; 

Whereas Bob Tisch helped create the Meals-on-Wheels program and served as its president for over 10 years, frequently delivering meals himself; 

Whereas Bob Tisch founded the Take the Field program, a 

program which during the 1990s raised over 

$100,000,000 in public and private funds to rebuild 43 

athletic fields in New York City for the use of hundreds 

of thousands of public school students; 

Whereas Bob Tisch gave countless millions of dollars to hospitals, charities, and universities in the spirit of improving the lives of Americans; 

Whereas on November 15, 2005, Bob Tisch died of a brain 

tumor at the age of 79; and 

Whereas the life of Bob Tisch serves as a model for self-made 

success and positive American philanthropy: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives, on the occasion of the death of Preston Robert Tisch—

(1) expresses its deepest condolences to his wife of 

57 years Joan and their 3 children; and 
3

•HRES 605 EH 

(2) recognizes the outstanding contributions Preston Robert Tisch made throughout his life to New York 

City, the New York Giants Football Club, the National 

Football League, and the United States. 

Attest:

Clerk.
# L_2023240EN.01007001.xml

| 28.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 240/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 240/70

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 209/2020

of 11 December 2020

amending Annex VI (Social security) to the EEA Agreement [2023/2011]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Recommendation No H2 of 10 October 2018 concerning the inclusion of authentication features to Portable Documents issued by the institution of a Member State and showing the position of a person for the purpose of the application of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Recommendation No H2 of 10 October 2018 concerning the inclusion of authentication features to Portable Documents issued by the institution of a Member State and showing the position of a person for the purpose of the application of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex VI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex VI to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 4.A1 (Recommendation No A1 of 18 October 2017) of Annex VI to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘4.H2. | 32019 H 0429(01): Recommendation No H2 of 10 October 2018 concerning the inclusion of authentication features to Portable Documents issued by the institution of a Member State and showing the position of a person for the purpose of the application of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ C 147, 29.4.2019, p. 6).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘4.H2.

32019 H 0429(01): Recommendation No H2 of 10 October 2018 concerning the inclusion of authentication features to Portable Documents issued by the institution of a Member State and showing the position of a person for the purpose of the application of Regulations (EC) No 883/2004 and (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ C 147, 29.4.2019, p. 6).’

Article 2

The text of Recommendation No H2 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 12 December 2020, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 11 December 2020.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Sabine MONAUNI

---

(1)  
  OJ C 147, 29.4.2019, p. 6.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
§ 1138.1205 Content of SUB Article XII. ( a ) *Requirement.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must address how a recipient may use a fixed-amount type of subaward, when it requires the Component's prior approval to do so, and what requirements the recipient must include in those subawards.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions* — ( 1 ) *General.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must use the wording appendix L to this part provides for SUB Article XII.
( 2 ) *Exceptions.* ( i ) In addition to the authorities provided in § 1138.5 to omit or reserve all or portions of the wording appendix L to this part provides for SUB Article XII, a DoD Component's general terms and conditions may add wording to Section B of the article to authorize recipients to use fixed-amount subawards without obtaining the Component's prior approval in other situations for which it would be appropriate to do so, given the nature of the program or programs that use its general terms and conditions.
( ii ) However, a DoD Component's general terms and conditions should never authorize recipients' use of fixed-amount subawards for basic or applied research, for the reason given in paragraph B.2.a.ii of the wording appendix L provides for SUB Article XII. It is unrealistic to have a subrecipient commit in advance to accomplishing specific, well-defined, and observable research outcomes. Doing so subjects the subrecipient to undue risk of not being reimbursed for research costs it incurred if it fails to fully accomplish the outcomes.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Washington, DC 20460

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

June 28, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting between EPA and CD-Adapco

FROM: Arvon Mitcham, Mechanical Engineer, and Sam Waltzer, Environmental 

Engineer.

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents the meeting held on June 27, 2011, between representatives from 

the USEPA and CD-Adapco. This meeting was a discussion of computational fluid dynamics 

(CFD) test data and general simulation practices.

Attendees included:

Arvon Mitcham, USEPA

Sam Waltzer, USEPA

Gregg Gustafson, CD-Adapco

Fred Ross, CD-Adapco

Kevin Horrigan, CD-Adapco
###### Editorial Note on Part 180

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 180.450 What action may I take if a lower tier participant fails to disclose the information required under § 180.355 to the next higher tier?

If you as a Federal agency official determine that a lower tier participant failed to disclose information, as required by § 180.355, at the time it entered into a covered transaction with a participant at the next higher tier, you may pursue any remedies available to you, including the initiation of a suspension or debarment action.
Order entered April 26, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00184
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF A .M.C. AND E.N.C., II I, CHILDREN On Appeal from the 330th Judicial Dist rict Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 12
- 21078



### O RDER Appellant filed a motion to stay proceedings in the trial court pursuant to the Service Members Civil Relief Act. See 50 U.S.C.A. § 3932. By order dated April 1 , 2019, the trial court granted the motion to stay proceedings and abated the case “as to all matters until June 30, 2019 or until further Order of this Court.” Before the Court is appellee’s April 2, 2019 motion for stay. At the time the trial court sig ned the April 1 order , appellee had pending in the trial court a motion for temporary orders pending appeal. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 109.001(a). Appellee asserts in her motion that the trial court will lose jurisdiction to hear and consider her motion for temporary orders. See id . § 109.001(b

- 2). In light of the trial court’s April 1 order, proceeding s in the trial court are abated, including the hearing on her motion for temporary orders pending appeal. For this reason, we DENY appellee’s motion. Al so before the Court is appellant’s April 25, 2019 motion seeking a sixty

- day extension of time to file his brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to June 28, 2019

. /s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
#### Wesleyan University *v.*Rissil Construction Associates, Inc., et al.

*Samuel J. Henderson,*in support of the petition.

*George D. Royster, Jr., John W. Lemega*and *Robert J. Hebron,*in opposition.

Decided May 1, 1984

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 1 Conn. App. 351, is denied.
#### § 1136.2 Applicability of this part.

The types of awards and entities to which this part and other parts in this subchapter apply are described in the subchapter overview at 2 CFR 1126.2.
Amendment to Mr. Amoroso's offer letter dated August 1, 2006



 Exhibit 10.1 
 August 1, 2006 
 Alfred Amoroso 
 c/o Macrovision Corporation 
 2830 De La Cruz Boulevard 
 Santa Clara, CA 95050 
 RE: Amendment to Annual Stock Option Refresh Grants 
 Dear Fred: 
 Pursuant to your offer letter
dated June 8, 2005, Macrovision Corporation (the “Company”) agreed to make annual stock option grants to you in each of 2006, 2007 and 2008 for 250,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. These annual stock option grants are
divided equally between two semiannual grant dates each year, which have been established by the Compensation Committee as March 1 and September 1 of each such year. 
 On July 28, 2006, the Compensation Committee approved an amendment to your offer letter with the Company such that on the September 1, 2006 grant date, the Company will grant you 125,000 shares of restricted
stock (the “Restricted Stock Award”), instead of the stock option grant that would have otherwise been granted to you on such date pursuant to your offer letter. The Restricted Stock Award will be granted at a price per share of the par
value of the stock, which is $0.001 per share, and will have a 4 year vesting schedule. These shares will vest in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Macrovision Corporation 2000 Equity Incentive Plan as follows: twenty-five percent
(25%) of the Restricted Stock Award shall vest on each anniversary of the September 1 grant date, subject to you continuing to be an employee of the Company or its subsidiaries through the applicable vesting date. 
 The Compensation Committee further approved the amendment to your offer letter to grant you restricted stock for the future semiannual grants in 2007 and 2008. The
number of shares and vesting terms for each semiannual grant will be the same as the Restricted Stock Award set forth above, with vesting commencing as of the date of the grant. 
 All other terms of your offer letter employment arrangement remain unchanged. To indicate your agreement with the terms of this amendment to your offer letter, please indicate by signing below and returning a copy of
this letter to the Company no later than August 3, 2006. 
 Sincerely, 
  

			
	 /s/ Steven G. Blank
	 	
	Steven G. Blank	 	
	Compensation Committee	 	
	Macrovision Corporation	 	
		
	Agreed & Accepted:	 	
		
	 /s/ Alfred J. Amoroso
	 	 8/2/06

	Alfred J. Amoroso	 	date
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Peter Rispole, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered May 12, 1966, convicting him of perjury in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. At the trial, evidence was admitted which had been obtained as a result of a wiretap carried out pursuant to an eavesdropping order. The factual content of the affidavits submitted in support of the order merely recited that one of the affiants, Alleyne, had entered the premises in which the tapped telephone was located and placed a policy bet with one “Pete Greco ”. There was nothing in the affidavits to indicate Greco’s relationship to the premises or to the telephone and nothing to indicate that a telephone was being used to further any gambling. For all that was stated in the affidavits, it was very possible that the tapped telephone had no relation to Greco or to the gambling activity evidenced by Alleyne’s wager. Under the circumstances, the affidavits were patently insufficient in that they failed to specify facts “ on which the Judge exercising a discretion could act ” *(People*v. *McCall,*17 N Y 2d 152, 157). Respondent contends that since no objection was made prior to trial, appellant waived his right to a subsequent review of the wiretap orders. (There were two orders; an original and an extension thereof.) This contention is without merit. Prior to trial, appellant moved to inspect, *inter alia,*the wiretap orders and papers submitted in support thereof. In denying that motion, the court explicitly recognized that the procedure regarding pretrial review of wiretap orders was in an unsettled state and treated the motion to inspect as such pretrial review. The court expressly held that the orders were issued upon reasonable grounds. Therefore, it is *664obvious that appellant did challenge the orders prior to trial, at least to the extent allowed by the court at that time. Christ, Acting P. J., Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Munder, J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment. (Beldoek, P. J., deceased.)