alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. NATHANIEL MILLER, Respondent, *v.*DE FOREST HULSE and Others, Commissioners of Highways of the Town of Brookhaven, Appellants.

*Befusal of highway commissioners to hme, what is claimed, to he a public road, ascertained and*recorded— *an error in their decision cannot he reviewed hy*mandamus.

Appeal from an order made at Special Term, directing tbe issuance of an alternative writ of *mandamus*against tbe defendants,, commanding them to proceed forthwith to ascertain, describe and record a certain highway in their town described in the papers in this proceeding.

The court at General Term said: “ There is much confusion and contradiction in the papers contained in the appeal book, but in the view we take of the case we shall not be required to examine the facts.

“ It appears that in March, 1884, a petition was signed by the taxpayers of Brookhaven, intended to request the commissioners of highways of that town to ascertain and record an old road which it was claimed existed therein. It also appears that in November, 1884, an order was made and signed by two of the commissioners refusing the application.

*“*It is now claimed on one part that this order was clandestinely made and filed, and on the other side that it was regularly signed as the result of due deliberation. Our view is that the writ of *mmdamus*is not the proper remedy for the difficulty into which the proceedings have been plunged. The commissioners have taken action on the petition, and if such action has been erroneous the errors must be reached by a review of their proceedings.

“The commissioners of highways constitute the tribunal upon which the legislature has imposed the duty to cause such of the *389roads used as highways for twenty years, but not recorded, to be ascertained, described and entered of record in the town clerk’s office. . In the performance of their duties under this law the commissioners must decide, first, whether the road brought to their consideration has been used as a public highway for twenty years, and it is beyond the competence of any court to dictate their decision. The Supreme Court, in the exercise of its supervisory power over all inferior tribunals, may command the commissioners to proceed in the discharge of their duty, and after they have taken their action their proceedings may be reviewed in some appropriate way, but orderly and regular administration of law requires no more.”

*Wilmqt M.*Smith, for the appellant.

*Strong*<6 *Spear,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

DykmaN, J.; Babnabd, P. J., concurred.

Pratt, J.:

I do not think the commissioners “acted” upon the matter, and hence *mandamus*was an appropriate remedy to make them act as a board. I am for affirmance.

Order granting alternative *mandamus*reversed, with costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with costs.
Exhibit 10.1 Q1 FY2013








        
TWENTIETH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




This Twentieth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of October 1, 2012, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and Jose Luis Laparte ("Executive").


Recitals


		
	A)
	On June 3, 2004 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.




		
	B)
	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on nineteen prior occasions;




		
	C)
	Employer and Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:




Agreement


		
	1.
	Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement, which currently provides:




3.1     Term.  The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on October 8, 2004 and shall continue until October 7, 2012, unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided (the "Employment Term").
 
is hereby amended, to provide as follows:


1.Term.  The term of Executive's employment hereunder shall commence on October 8, 2004 and shall continue until October 7, 2013, unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided (the "Employment Term").


		
	2.
	All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.




Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.


EXECUTIVE                        EMPLOYER
PriceSmart, INC.


Jose Luis Laparte                     By:                 


______________________                Name: Robert M. Gans    


Its:     Executive Vice President
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0065

SAT Date: 11/9/2012

Print Date: 2/4/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: Yes

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: IRR-E,S,L,MM, LUNG, UNCERT-SENS, AQUATOX-A,

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0063-77

FATE: Estimations for 

Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

log Kow = 3.30 (E) 

S = Dispersible / 73.2 mg/L at 25 C (ICB / E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

log Koc = 5.66 (E)

log Fish BCF = 1.85 (E)
log Fish BAF = 1.79 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: P1B1

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is poor through the skin, moderate through 

the GI tract, and good through the lungs based on analogs. The PMN material is expected to be 

a strong irritant to all exposed tissues based on the amines and the surfactant properties of the 

material. There is also concern for lung effects if respirable particles are inhaled based on 

cationic binding to lung tissues and/or interference with the natural surfactant balance in the 

lungs. There is uncertain concern for sensitization for the 

moieties. Moderate concern. 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 1.3 aliphatic amine SAR

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.21 aliphatic amine SAR

green algal 96-h EC50 0.078 amide SAR

fish _ chronic value 0.012 amide SAR

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.023 aliphatic amine SAR

algal _ chronic 

value

0.038 aliphatic amine SAR

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for aliphatic amines and amides; 

SAR chemical class = aliphatic amine, amide; ; liquid; log Kow = 5.15 (EPI); S = 

dispersible in water at 25 C (P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC 

<2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1 amide SAR

SARs aliphatic amines and amides

SAR Class aliphatic amine, amide

Ecotox Category None
Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: Becky Jones
From: kevincollins1@mac.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:27:39 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Kevin Collins

Morrisville, PA 19067
From: nbaxley49@verizon.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:30:57 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Nancy Baxley

Garland, TX 75043
From: talkwithjill@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:00:17 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jill Butcher

Loganville, GA 30052
From: hiedib@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:36:46 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Hiedi Blackwelder

Pleasant Grove, UT 84062
<PAGE>
 
                               State of Delaware

                       Office of the Secretary of State    PAGE 1
                       --------------------------------



     I, EDWARD J. FREEL, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
OF "TELESCIENCES INC.", CHANGING ITS NAME FROM "TELESCIENCES INC." TO
"TELESCIENCES, INC.", FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL, A.D. 1999,
AT 11:45 O'CLOCK A.M.

     A FILED COPY OF THIS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE NEW CASTLE 
COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS.









                                        /s/ Edward J. Freel
                      [SEAL APPEARS     ----------------------------------------
                          HERE]         Edward J. Freel, Secretary of State

2415198   8100                          AUTHENTICATION:    9679263

991139474                                         DATE:    04-09-99
<PAGE>
 
                               State of Delaware

                       Office of the Secretary of State    PAGE 1
                       --------------------------------



     I, EDWARD J. FREEL, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THE ATTACHED IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
OF "AXIOM INC.", CHANGING ITS NAME FROM "AXIOM INC." TO "TELESCIENCES INC.",
FILED IN THIS OFFICE ON THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH, A.D. 1999, AT 10:10 O'CLOCK
A.M.

     A FILED COPY OF THIS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE NEW CASTLE 
COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS.









                                        /s/ Edward J. Freel
                    [SEAL APPEARS       ----------------------------------------
                        HERE]           Edward J. Freel, Secretary of State

2415198   8100                          AUTHENTICATION:    9659373

991123556                                         DATE:    03-30-99
****AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE GUARANTEE****

This Agreement to Provide Guarantee (the "Agreement")is made effective as of December 10, 2000 (the "Effective Date") by andbetween Assembly and Manufacturing Systems, Inc., a California corporation("AMS" or the "Company") and the A. H. Kerr Foundation (hereinafter "Kerr").
**RECITALS**
A. AMS is interested in obtaining a line of credit fromCalifornia Bank & Trust, but can not do so without a guarantee froma financial creditable entity.; and,
B. Kerr is willing to provide a guarantee of the lineof credit in return for certain consideration payable to it and Companyand its parent are willing to provide such consideration.
**AGREEMENT**
    NOW THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe covenants and conditions of this Agreement the parties do hereby agreeas follows: 
1. **Guarantee**. Kerr agrees to sign the documentationpreviously presented to it by California Bank & Trust (the "Bank"),wherein Kerr agrees to guarantee a line of credit to AMS in the amountof $100,000, and keep such guarantee in force until this Agreement terminatesin accordance with Section 2 below. In consideration for such guaranteeAMS shall cause its parent, SGI, to issue to Kerr 50,000 shares of SGIrestricted stock.
2.  **Term and Amendment**. This Agreementshall be effective as of the Effective Date and continue through December31, 2001.
3. **Integration**. This Agreement constitutesthe entire agreement between all parties herein and supersedes all prioragreements and understandings, oral or written, between the parties heretowith respect to the subject matter hereof, and shall not be modified oramended except in writing, executed by all parties herein.
4. **Authority**. Each person signing this Agreementwarrants and represents that he/she has the full and complete authorityto do so and bind himself/herself.
5.**Law.**This Agreement and all amendmentsthereto shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, and venuefor any legal action arising out of this Agreement shall be in San DiegoCounty, California.
6. **Attorneys Fees.**In the event suit isbrought to enforce or interpret any part of this Agreement, the prevailingparty shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees to be fixed by thecourt. 
    IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties haveexecuted this Agreement by their duly authorized signatories as of theday and year first written above.Assembly and Manufacturing Systems, Inc.            A. H. Kerr FoundationBy: */s/ MichaelL. Rose*Michael L. Rose, CEOBy: */s/ WilliamA. Kerr*William A. Kerr
From: thewiegmans@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:32:09 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Shadley Wiegman

Mcminnville, OR 97128
From: lindajim60@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:19:30 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jim & Linda Pfister

Melbourne, KY 41059