alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
4

‘\i

2 OFFICE OFTHEAmORNEY GENERALOFTU(AS d AUSTIN

Austin, f0xM Dear DP. Yoodot 

### 0,dnlon no. 2

Re' fit" 

### %

OS the a0

A OS atnl*s 

### t aatloa1

reqld Boll5-v 0 

### otric saa, t"d, or soots 

### tr

etter, **above tmbjefd** 



## AJaguat is OS

, To-q, 

## requesttl.on mm-ass-v, tbn was en ooatmot 4he eoid omapaay set becum0 Of as brolq#tt aboat da8On ior 0aDaelItag t&e abow 

### letterof 0 your of

### sB+gki% 2; ;::~~t~:2:~*:uo 

### orstco to that the Rsdtb-Perry BElootrit Co. could not del+wr on our contraat. Thei Bosrd OS control irrsued the purchaecgrcler

on the sqaomt fan, and th%s purehhoee order over-enoumb~red our usnerrl RcwmmcsFund appropriationc-1073. IS our .mqaitaifion lb. imu-sari--v haA bean oanoe16d, there would bs suSMuiont fur&e in this appropriation to pay fer the faxi that was actuallydeliveredby the wafter Tlpa Corspaoy OS6,~anorebl0ii. A. uoods - pege 2

Austin, Tame, 

### un our requieitioa No. SRU-JM)-V. mere i8 00 other appropriationout of whloh this fen may be psld for. Shi6 ofSlc0 rospeetSul2 ly requostsyour offloial opinion in order thet wo luay havs our requieitloni&W-323-Y logally aanoeled and the oblia;otion 1lquUletedso Sex-

as our appropriation

l+lw3 is oormerned. mNe bOllie?Q

that hour ophlon No.. 0+708 pmsdts the Board of control to oencel our retieition DiJ-3264, but so far w8 here been xmable to have tha Board OS c0ntr01teke eny 

### notianon our 

### requoet

.@ Our opiniozk

No. o-3708 reierred to by pm, wItI& was addr6eeodto aonorableTom De&wry, member OS the BoarCot control,does not purport to answer the precise questionnowput W YOU. Its **reasoning** is pertinent to your question, but not deaieire.The4

purpos6 6s r6qmdficmm end amtaM¶nts egealst epeeifioeppoprietione is a rholseome one, em¶ eerves es a check em double check egeinst the danger OS poesible liebilities exceedingthe appropriation.



### Uosw noreeaon,horeter,why erequfmifimoamltmemt,8hi&ihahaab6aonaetanative ahergeegeAnstth8 

### lppropr&etlon, @wild not be oeneelled in the menner you suggest,where itie apparent to ell parties aw06rn6d that the pumheee eontempletodaan not in anj event be <ronsunmiated by dellvery.tJndeubtedly,euuh a aanaellationor relsase,rould tsorve the useSul purposeOS mek3ng ectuallg ereilable the enfIr approprtetion. Any other prowdur6 would ale no useful purpoea,end mould In soma measure thuart the 16@sletire ~I11 in metho ap~sroyzietionr Ye think, as&n& the Saot above etated to bo true tand

complete, the relooee or oenaelletionOS the oomltmnt ehouldbe requoetedby the pl0es-d oS Control.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

*18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:*

 

In connection with this quarterly report of PharmaNetics, Inc**.** on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to his/her knowledge: 

 

1. This report fullycomplies 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 operation of PharmaNetics,Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 

 

Date: August 12, 2003
**EXHIBIT32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection withthe Annual Report of 24/7 Real Media, Inc. (the “**Company**”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “**Report**”), I, Jonathan K. Hsu, ExecutiveVice President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| March 16, 2007 |
|----------------|
|           |
|           | /s/ JONATHAN  K. HSU |
|           | Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer  and Chief Financial Officer |
|           | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon reques

----
#### Frances Whitney, Respondent, *v.*Lyric-Rochester Corporation, Appellant. Edward Whitney, Respondent, *v.*Lyric-Rochester Corporation, Appellant.

(Argued October 8, 1936;

decided October 23, 1936.)

*Nicholas J. Weldgen*for appellant.

*Asher N. Shapiro*for respondents.

Judgments affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00097-CV

ESTATE OF MICHAEL LYNN LUCE,

DECEASED

§

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 2

of Parker County (CIV-16-0132)

November 15, 2018

Opinion by Justice Kerr

Concurrence by Justice Meier (to follow)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgment. We reverse the part of the trial court’s March 

7, 2017 order modifying the trial court’s December 22, 2016 judgment by setting aside 

the jury’s good-faith-and-with-just-cause finding against Appellant/Cross-Appellee 

GayeLynne Luce and awarding her an unspecified amount of attorney’s fees. We 

affirm the remainder of the trial court’s March 7, 2017 order. We reverse the trial 
court’s October 30, 2017 order awarding GayeLynne Luce $199,653.66 in attorney’s

fees and expenses. We affirm the trial court’s October 27, 2017 and October 31, 

2017 orders denying Tina Poole’s request for attorney’s fees and expenses as the 

executor designated in the 2015 will. We affirm the trial court’s December 22, 

2016 judgment.

We tax appellate costs against Appellant/Cross-Appellee GayeLynne Luce.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
§ 417.119 Rehearsals. ( a ) *General.* A launch operator must rehearse its launch crew and systems to identify corrective actions needed to ensure public safety. The launch operator must conduct all rehearsals as follows: ( 1 ) A launch operator must assess any anomalies identified by a rehearsal, and must incorporate any changes to launch processing and flight needed to correct any anomaly that is material to public safety.
( 2 ) A launch operator must inform the FAA of any public safety related anomalies and related changes in operations performed during launch processing or flight resulting from a rehearsal.
( 3 ) For each launch, each person with a public safety critical role who will participate in the launch processing or flight of a launch vehicle must participate in at least one related rehearsal that exercises his or her role during nominal and non-nominal conditions so that the launch vehicle will not harm the public.
( 4 ) A launch operator must conduct the rehearsals identified in this section for each launch.
( 5 ) At least one rehearsal must simulate normal and abnormal preflight and flight conditions to exercise the launch operator's launch plans.
( 6 ) A launch operator may conduct rehearsals at the same time if joint rehearsals do not create hazardous conditions, such as changing a hardware configuration that affects public safety, during the rehearsal.
( b ) *Countdown rehearsal.* A launch operator must conduct a rehearsal using the countdown plan, procedures, and checklist required by § 417.111(l). A countdown rehearsal must familiarize launch personnel with all countdown activities, demonstrate that the planned sequence of events is correct, and demonstrate that there is adequate time allotted for each event. A launch operator must hold a countdown rehearsal after the assembly of the launch vehicle and any launch support systems into their final configuration for flight and before the launch readiness review required by § 417.117.
( c ) *Emergency response rehearsal.* A launch operator must conduct a rehearsal of the emergency response section of the accident investigation plan required by § 417.111(h)(2). A launch operator must conduct an emergency response rehearsal for a first launch of a new vehicle, for any additional launch that involves a new safety hazard, or for any launch where more than a year has passed since the last rehearsal.
( d ) *Communications rehearsal.* A launch operator must rehearse each part of the communications plan required by § 417.111(k), either as part of another rehearsal or during a communications rehearsal.
Exhibit 24.2



                               KEYSPAN CORPORATION

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY



     WHEREAS,  KeySpan  Corporation,  a New York  corporation  (the  "Company"),
intends to file with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, an Annual Report on Form 10-K as prescribed by
said Commission  pursuant to said Act and the rules and regulations  promulgated
thereunder.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in my capacity as a director of the Company,  I do hereby
appoint RONALD S. JENDRAS,  GERALD LUTERMAN,  JOHN J. BISHAR, JR. and MICHAEL J.
TAUNTON,  and each of them  severally,  as my  attorneys-in-fact  with  power to
execute  in my name and  place,  and in my  capacity  as a  director  of KeySpan
Corporation,  said Report,  any amendment to said Report and any other documents
required in connection  therewith,  and to file the same with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this power of attorney  this 6th day of
March, 2003.




                                                    /s/Andrea S. Christensen
                                                    ------------------------
                                                    Andrea S. Christensen
Page 1 of 2 DENY Opinion Filed May 4, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05-21-00810-CV IN RE AURELIA HEPPNER, Relator Original Proceeding from the 330th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-21273
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Nowell, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Schenck Relator’s petition for writ of manda mus challenges the trial court’s September 13, 2021 order granting real party in interest ’s motion for E.B. and J.B. to be interviewed in the unde rlying suit affecting parent-ch ild relationship. Relator contends the trial court abused its discre tion in ordering that the eighteen-year-old, J.B., be interviewe d in-chambers under Fa mily Code Section 153.009 arguing that J.B. is not a child as defined in Family Code Section 101.003 for the purposes of such interview. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE §§ 101.003, 153.009. Relator also arguesPage 2 of 2 that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that the in-chambers interview be conducted by Family Court Services. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires re lator to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that sh e lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004 ) (orig. proceeding). Based on our review of relator’s petiti on and record, real party’s response, and relator’s reply and supplemental reco rd, we conclude re lator has failed to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). We also lift the stay we ordered on Se ptember 23, 2021 as to the interviews.

210810F.P05 /David J. Schenck / DAVID J. SCHENCK JUSTICE
#### HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE v HOLMES

Case No. 91-02275-COCE-52

County Court, Broward County

June 6, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Charles W. Cherry, II., Esquire, for plaintiff.

Sharon Bourassa-Diaz, Esquire, Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Inc., for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

THOMAS M. LYNCH, IV., County Judge.

*ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR STAY OF WRIT OF POSSESSION*

THIS CAUSE came before this Court upon the Defendant’s Motion for Stay of Writ of Possession, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

*117
      *FINDINGS OF FACT*

1. The Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Tenant Eviction and the Defendant filed her Answer as well as Demand for Jury Trial.

2. This cause was heard by a jury and a verdict for the Plaintiff was entered on Thursday, May 16, 1991 returning possession of the premises to the Plaintiff.

3. On May 20, 1991, four (4) days after the jury rendered its verdict, this Court signed an Order for Tenant Removal and Writ of Possession directing the Clerk to issue the writ forthwith.

4. On May 20, 1991, Defendant filed her Motion for Stay of the Writ of Possession which asserted that this Court prematurely entered the Writ of Possession in violation of Rule 1.550(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure which states that no execution or final process shall issue until the time for serving a motion for new trial has expired and if a motion for new trial is served until it is determined.

5. The Defendant argued at the hearing that under Rule 1.530(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, she had ten (10) days after the jury returned its verdict on May 16, 1991 to file her motion for new trial, to wit: May 28, 1991, and that the Writ of Possession, therefore, was entered prematurely on May 20, 1991.

*CONCLUSIONS OF LAW*

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED as follows:

1. In accordance with Rule 1.530(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendant had ten (10) days from May 16, 1991, the date the jury verdict was returned, to request a motion for a new trial, to wit: May 28, 1991.

2. Rule 1.550(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provides that no execution or final process shall issue until the time for serving a motion for new trial has expired and if a motion for new trial has been timely served, until it is determined.

3. The Writ of Possession issued by this Court on May 20, 1991, four (4) days after the jury returned its verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, was entered prematurely and, therefore, in violation of Rule 1.550(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. In accordance with Rule 1.550(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Writ of Possession entered May 20, 1991 is hereby stayed until Defendant’s Motion for New Trial filed on May 28, 1991 is determined.

*118DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at Fort Lauderdale, Bro-ward County, Florida, this 6th day of June, 1991.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3895 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3895

 To amend section 242 of title 18, United States Code, to include the 
use of chokeholds and carotid holds as a deprivation of rights and as a 
         punishment, pain, or penalty, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2020

Mrs. Gillibrand (for herself, Ms. Warren, Ms. Smith, and Ms. Klobuchar) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 242 of title 18, United States Code, to include the 
use of chokeholds and carotid holds as a deprivation of rights and as a 
         punishment, pain, or penalty, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Eric Garner Excessive Force 
Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. CHOKEHOLDS AS CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.

    (a) Amendment.--Section 242 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following: ``For the purposes of this 
section, the application of any pressure to the throat or windpipe, the 
use of maneuvers that restrict blood or oxygen flow to the brain, or 
the use of carotid artery restraints which may prevent or hinder 
breathing or reduce intake of air is a deprivation of a right, 
privilege, or immunity and is a punishment, pain, or penalty.''.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in the amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall be construed to limit or exclude other claimed 
deprivations of rights, privileges, or immunities or punishments, 
pains, or penalties under section 242 of title 18, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
ex106521.htm


EX-10.65.21



 

FIRST AMENDEMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT

 

 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOAN AGREEMENT (the “First Amendment”) is made as of February 18, 2008, by and among EMERI-SKY SC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, EMERIVILL SC LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and EMERIPARK SC LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (together, collectively, with their respective successors and assigns, “Borrowers” or “Borrower”, and, individually, a “Borrower”), and CAPMARK BANK, a Utah industrial bank (together with its successors and assigns, “Lender”).


 

RECITALS

 

A.           Borrowers and Lender executed that certain Loan Agreement dated March 26, 2007 (the “Agreement”), governing the terms of loans to Borrowers in the aggregate principal sum of $23,600,000.00.

 

B.           Lender and Borrowers desire to correct an error in Section 4.14(a)(i) of the Agreement, and have agreed to execute this First Amendment to evidence such correction.

 

AGREEMENT

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, Borrowers and Lender hereby amend the Agreement as follows:

 


	
1.  
	
Section 4.14(a)(i) is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




 


	
(i)  
	
A Debt Service Coverage Ratio, after deduction of Actual Management Fees, of not less than 1.0 to 1.0, for the trailing three months ending June 30, 2008, and continuing for each three month period thereafter until the Loans are paid in full;




 

Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.





  



1







  









 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrowers and Lender have caused this First Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first set forth above.

 

BORROWER:

 

EMERI-SKY SC LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company





     By Emeritus Corporation,

     a Washington corporation

     Its Manager









By: /s/ Eric Mendelsohn

             Eric Mendelsohn

             Senior VP Corporate Development





  



2







  





BORROWER:

 

EMERIVILL SC LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company





     By Emeritus Corporation,

     a Washington corporation

     Its Manager









By: /s/ Eric Mendelsohn

             Eric Mendelsohn

             Senior VP Corporate Development













  



3







  





BORROWER:

 

EMERIPARK SC LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company





     By Emeritus Corporation,

     a Washington corporation

     Its Manager









By: /s/ Eric Mendelsohn

            Eric Mendelsohn

            Senior VP Corporate Development













  



4







  









LENDER:

 

CAPMARK BANK, a Utah industrial bank

 













By:  /s/Malana C. Bryant (SEAL)

Name:  Malana C. Bryant

Title:    Authorized Signer







 





 





  



5
#### RUSSELL v BERGOVOY

Case No. 90-264 AP

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County

May 17, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Gerald Russell, pro se.

Carlos Triplicki, Esquire, for appellee.

Before CARDONNE, FERRO, DEAN, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FERRO, J.

This appeal follows the entry of an order dismissing the appellant’s complaint with prejudice. We reverse.

The appellant filed a complaint for damages alleging that the appellee had converted funds belonging to the appellant. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s complaint with prejudice. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to give the appellant at least one opportunity to amend his complaint to state a cause of action. *Ayers v Home Owners Association of Killearn Estates,*360 So.2d 1326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); *Affordable Homes, Inc. v Devil’s Run Limited,*408 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

*64Therefore, we reverse and the case is remanded with directions that the appellant be allowed reasonable time to amend his complaint.

CARDONNE and DEAN JJ., concur.

REVERSED.
Exhibit 99.1





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 of Arch Chemicals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael E. Campbell, Chief Executive 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:





| | (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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




/s/    Michael E. Campbell





Michael E. Campbell


Chief Executive Officer


August 14, 2002
631 A.2d 1244

#### ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. Vincent Arthur BUTLER.

Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV), No. 42,

September Term, 1993.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 25, 1993.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Consent to Disbarment from the practice of law filed by Vincent Arthur Butler, in accordance with Maryland Rule BV12d2, and the written recommendation of Bar Counsel, it is this 25th day of October, 1993

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Vincent Arthur Butler be, and he is hereby, disbarred by consent 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 Vincent Arthur Butler, from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to Maryland Rule BV13, shall certify that fact to the Trustees of the Clients’ Security Trust Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in the State.