alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Moroze & Sherman, P. C., Appellant-Respondent, v M. Brian Moroze, Respondent-Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 36]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.), entered November 28, 1994, which denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action to determine the price at which plaintiff professional corporation is required to purchase or redeem the shares of its deceased 50% shareholder and founder pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1510, the IAS Court properly found the existence of issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s method of valuation at book value in accordance with the corporation’s regular method of accounting would produce a windfall to the surviving shareholder together with an unjust hardship to the decedent’s estate *(see, Diamond & Golomb v Diamond,*189 AD2d 722, 724, citing *Moroze & Sherman v Moroze,*104 AD2d 70). The statute does not necessarily require application of a strict book value method under these circumstances. In this case, the value of all contingent receivables and work in progress as of the date of decedent’s death should be considered. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v DANNY L. MURPHY, Seaman Apprentice, U. S. Navy, Appellant

16 USCMA 245, 36 CMR 401

No. 19,199

April 29, 1966

*Major Ernest B, Wright,*USMC, argued the cause for Appellant, Ac-*246cased. *Captain John P. Gleeson,*USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Walter F. Brown,*USN, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. *Colonel J. E. Eanthorn,*USMC, and *Lieutenant Jean E. Van Slate,*USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

At issue in this ease is the authority of Head, Military Personnel Department, U. S. Naval Station, Treasure Island, San Francisco, California, to convene the special court-martial whieh tried the accused. Except for the location of the Naval Station, the jurisdictional facts are the same as those in United States v Surtasky, 16 USCMA 241, 36 CMR 397. For the reasons set out in our opinion in that case, we hold that the convening authority was competent to convene the court-martial which tried the accused. Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judges Ferguson and Kilday concur.
Before the Third Division,

December 29, 1939

No. 42933.

#### Protest 950260-G of Alfred Orlik, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

No evidence was offered in support of the claims made. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Numida,
Inc., (formerly known as Labonte, Inc.) for the quarter Ended June 30, 2004, I,
Bernie McGinn, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Labonte,
Inc. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

     1.   Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30,
          2004, 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 such quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for
          the quarter ended June 30, 2004, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Numida, Inc.


Dated:  August 13, 2004


NUMIDA, INC.

By: /s/ Bernie McGinn
---------------------------
Bernie McGinn
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
67°30'E 67°45'E

33°N

363008

32°45'N

3690000

EXPLANATION 0 10 KILOMETERS
— Road & Peak /——__
—--— Stream, mostly intermittant [__] Image quadrant or tile 0 5S MILES
O City, town, or village [|_| Image subarea

—- Province boundary
CONSENT OF JAAK (JACK) OLESK
                    INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT



I consent to the incorporation by reference and use in the Annual Report on Form
10-K under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 if Integrated Communication
Networks, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1999, of my financial statements
if Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. (formerly, Global Access Pagers,
Inc.) for the years ended December 31, 1998 and December 31, 1997 and for the
period from inception (January 16, 1997) to December 31, 1998, report dated
February 3, 1999, insofar as such report relates to the consolidated financial
statements and schedules of Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. (formerly,
Global Access Pagers, Inc.) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


/s/ Jaak Olesk
-------------------------
Jaak (Jack) Olesk
Date: March 29, 2000
Certified Public Accountant
Beverly Hills, Ca
No. 46180.

#### Protests 935173-G, etc., of B. R. Anderson & Co. et al. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same as that the subject of *Wilson*v. *United States*(28 C. C. P. A. 63, C. A. D. 126). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1768 was therefore sustained.
Exhibit 10.40

 

ADDENDUM TO FACILITY AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT

 

This Addendum (the “Addendum”) is entered into effective as of January 1, 2015, by and between U.S. Cancer Care, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Manager”) and 21st Century Oncology of California, a Medical Corporation (“Medical Group”). This Addendum amends Section 4(a) of the Facility and Management Services Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated October 18, 2013 between Manager and Medical Group to revise the Management Fee, as defined in the Agreement.

 

From and after the date hereof, Section 4(a) shall read as follows:

 

4(a). Manager shall be paid, and Manager shall accept as payment for all facilities, Equipment, supplies, personnel and services provided to Medical Group hereunder, an annual amount equal to seventy-seven percent (77%) of Net Collected Dollars (the “Management Fee”). For purposes of this Agreement, “Net Collected Dollars” shall mean the gross collections attributable to radiation therapy services provided by Medical Group at the Licensed Premises during the term of this Agreement, net of refunds, adjustments, overpayments and the billing fee due Financial Services of Southwest Florida, LLC by Medical Group pursuant to the Billing Services Agreement further described in Section 5(a) (the “Billing Services Fee”).

 

 

	
Accepted:
    	
U.S.   CANCER CARE, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:   
    	
/s/   JOSEPH BISCARDI
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Joseph   Biscardi
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Assistant   Treasurer
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Accepted:
    	
21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, A MEDICAL   CORPORATION
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:   
    	
/s/   DANIEL E. DOSORETZ, M.D.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Daniel   E. Dosoretz, M.D.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Vice   President
Exhibit 10.27

SIXTH LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT

This Sixth Loan Modification Agreement (this "Agreement") is entered into as of January 12, 2005 by and betweenWITNESS
SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation ("Borrower"), whose address is 300 Colonial Center Parkway, Roswell, Georgia 30076, andSILICON VALLEY
BANK("Lender"), a California-chartered bank with a principal place of business at 3003 Tasman Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054 and with a loan production office located at 3353
Peachtree Road, Suite M-10, Atlanta, GA 30326.

WHEREAS,
among other indebtedness which may be owing by Borrower to Lender, Borrower is indebted to Lender pursuant to, among other documents, a Loan and Security Agreement, dated
April 3, 2002, as may be amended from time to time, in the original principal amount of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) (the "Loan Agreement"; the Loan Agreement together with all other
documents evidencing or securing the indebtedness shall be referred to as the "Existing Loan Documents");

WHEREAS,
the Loan Agreement provides for, among other things, a Committed Revolving Line in the original principal amount of Fifteen Million Dollars ($15,000,000) (hereinafter, all
indebtedness owing by Borrower to Lender shall be referred to as the "Indebtedness"); and

WHEREAS,
Borrower has requested that Lender amend the Loan Agreement, and Lender is willing to do so, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein.

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereto hereby agree as follows:



Fiscal Quarter Ending:

Average EBITDAMarch 31, 2005

$
(500,000
)June 30, 2005

$
1,500,000September 30, 2005

$
3,000,000December 31, 2005

$
4,000,000






---





[signatures
appear on following page]

---



This
Loan Modification Agreement is executed as of the date first written above.

| |  | LENDER:              
| |  | ---------------------
| |  | SILICON VALLEY BANK  
| |  | By:                  
| |  | Name:                
| |  | Title:               
| |  | BORROWER:            
| |  | WITNESS SYSTEMS, INC.
| |  | By:                  
| |  | Name:                
| |  | Title:               

---



QuickLinks
#### Saul Freeman et al., Plaintiffs, v Diamond Chemical Co., Inc., et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Independent Chemical Corp., Third-Party Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant; Freeman’s Circle Valet, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

[633 NYS2d 815]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., based on negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty, the third and fourth-party *413defendant fifth-party plaintiff Independent Chemical Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.), dated February 3, 1995, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth-party complaints and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiff Saul Freeman was injured when he handled a chemical supplied by the appellant, a distributor of industrial chemicals. The appellant alleges that it sold the chemical in 55-gallon drums to the defendant third-party plaintiff Diamond Chemical Co., Inc., which repackaged the chemical into one-gallon bottles and then sold them to the defendant fourth-party plaintiff Buy-Rite Chemical Co., which allegedly sold the product to the plaintiffs employer. The appellant contends on appeal that it owed no duty to either Diamond Chemical Co., Inc., or Buy-Rite Chemical Co. to warn them of the dangers of repackaging the chemical, which repackaging, it claims, was the proximate cause of Saul Freeman’s injuries.

However, since the appellant did not raise the issue of its lack of duty to warn in the Supreme Court, this issue is not properly before this Court on appeal *(see, Fondaras v Gabyro, Inc.*215 AD2d 723; *Orellano v Samples Tire Equip. & Supply Corp.,*110 AD2d 757). Moreover, there are triable issues of fact as to the adequacies of the warnings supplied by the appellant with the drums of chemicals it sold.

We have examined the appellant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.
<page>
									           EXHIBIT 32.02


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Spectrum
Currency L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I,
Christian Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter
Management Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of 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 Partner-
ship.







By:	/s/Christian Angstadt

Name:		Christian Angstadt
Title:		Chief Financial Officer

Date:		March 27, 2008
# C_2007251EN.01000402.xml

| 26.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/4

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 399th meeting on 28 November 2005 concerning a draft decision in Case COMP/38354 — Industrial bags

(2007/C 251/05)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the basic amount of the fines for the companies concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the basic amount of the fines for the companies concerned.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the European Commission on the increase of the basic amount due to aggravating circumstances.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there is no reduction of the basic amount to be applied due to attenuating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there is no reduction of the basic amount to be applied due to attenuating circumstances.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the fines based on the 1996 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction of the fines based on the 1996 Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00028-CV

In the Matter of A.J.W. §

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 1

of Wichita County (38979-LR)

March 26, 2015

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

JUDGMENT

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

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the 

trial court is reversed and we vacate the trial court’s January 26, 2015 “Order to 

Authorize Psychoactive Medication” and “Judgment–Temporary Mental Health.”

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, the Chief Executive Officer, of Witness Systems, Inc. (the "registrant"), certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of the registrant;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:



|Dated: March 12, 2004 |  |     |                                                                                  
|--------------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  | BY: | /s/DAVID B. GOULDDavid B. Gould Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer

---

QuickLinks
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 20, 2014

NO. 03-13-00683-CV

S. N. G., Appellant

v.

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on October 1, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
KAI 2014 Ex 10.8






Exhibit 10.8


SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION


Cash Compensation
Effective January 1, 2015, directors of Kadant Inc. (the “company”) who are not employees are paid the following fees for serving on our board of directors:
		
	•
	An annual retainer of $50,000, payable in equal monthly installments.


		
	•
	An additional annual retainer for our non-executive chairman of the board of $60,000, payable in equal monthly installments. Prior to 2015, the non-executive chairman of the board received an annual retainer of $50,000.


		
	•
	An additional annual retainer for chairmen of the following committees: audit committee - $10,000 (increased from $8,000); compensation committee - $7,500 (increased from $4,000); nominating and corporate governance committee - $5,000 (increased from $2,500); and risk oversight committee - $5,000.


		
	•
	Reimbursement of out-of pocket expenses incurred in attending or participating in meetings of our board of directors or its committees.


We do not provide any meeting fees to our directors for their board service. All annual retainers are paid in equal monthly installments.
Restricted Stock Units
Each of our non-employee directors also receives an annual award of 5,000 stock-settled restricted stock units (“RSUs”), distributable in shares of common stock upon vesting.  The RSUs vest in installments of 1,250 shares each on the last day of each of the company’s fiscal quarters during the year. 
Prior to 2015, each of our non-employee directors also received an award of 10,000 stock-settled RSUs that vests only in the event that a change-in-control of our company occurs prior to the last day of the first quarter of 2015. Each of our non-employee directors has received a new five-year award of 10,000 cash-settled RSUs that vests and is distributable in cash only in the event that a change-in-control of our company occurs during the period beginning on the first day of the second quarter of fiscal 2015 and prior to the last day of the first quarter of 2020. Each cash-settled RSU is the economic equivalent of one share of common stock. 
All awards are made under our company’s stockholder-approved equity incentive plans. The vesting of all awards accelerates in the event of a change in control of our company. Any awards, to the extent not previously vested, are forfeited if the recipient is no longer a member of our board of directors on the vesting dates for any reason other than a change-in-control of the company. The terms and conditions governing these awards are stated in the form of restricted stock unit award agreement for non-employee directors filed as exhibits to the company’s annual report on Form 10-K.
Stock Ownership Guidelines
Under our stock ownership guidelines adopted in March 2011, our directors are required to hold shares of our company’s common stock equivalent in value to three times their annual cash retainer. Compliance with the guidelines is measured annually following the close of the fiscal year, and directors have five years from the later of adoption of our stock ownership guidelines or their appointment as a director to attain compliance.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jaquan Jenkins, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 511]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered February 28, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

After the court’s finding of a prima facie reverse-Baison pattern of purposeful discrimination, the defense counsel was asked to give a reason for her peremptory challenge to juror number 3. She indicated, "I didn’t feel comfortable with him. First of all, being from Borough Park, to me that might be a neighborhood where he might be uncomfortable with my client * * * My understanding of it, and I believe because my client is black, that might lead to some problems * * * The neighborhood makes me uncomfortable * * * it is quite a white neighborhood”. This explanation virtually defines purposeful exclusion based upon race. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the peremptory challenge *(see, People v Kern,*75 NY2d 638, *cert denied*498 US 824; *People v Allen,*86 NY2d 101).

The trial court properly admitted testimony that the police arrested the defendant because he was in a stolen car, and not because of the robbery. This evidence "was relevant to the officer’s motive for placing the defendant under arrest” *(People v*
      *660
      *Muriell,*128 AD2d 554, 555; *see, People v Caíala,*198 AD2d 293) and the court thoroughly instructed the jury as to the limited usage of the statement.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.