alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of John Kopec, Appellant, v Raymond Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

[634 NYS2d 65]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about January 25, 1994, which, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits, denied the application, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner was shot by a fellow police officer, with whom he was romantically involved, while visiting her in her home and *253off-duty, and claims that he was attempting to disarm her. While petitioner’s off-duty status does not necessarily preclude a line-of-duty finding, it is also true that petitioner’s attempt to disarm his assailant does not, as the IAS Court aptly put it, necessarily "transform a personal drama in which he was a principal player into a police action undertaken in the line of duty”. Petitioner’s off-duty status, his personal relationship with his assailant, the occurrence of the incident in a private residence, and the absence of any threat to the public at large combine to provide a rational basis for respondents’ determination that petitioner was not in "city-service” within the meaning of Administrative Code of the City of New York § 13-252. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Williams and Tom, JJ.
Exhibit 10.6


 


February 12, 2014


 


Dr. Robert C. Ashton, Jr.


260 Speer Avenue


Englewood, NJ 07631-1928


 


Dear Rob:


 


On behalf of MYOS Corporation (“MYOS” or the “Company”),
I am pleased to extend to you this offer of employment as the Company’s Chief Medical Officer.  We are excited to have
you as a part of the senior management team and your expertise is highly needed here. This position will report directly to Chairman,
Dr. Robert Hariri.


 


You will receive an initial annual base salary of $250,000, payable
in accordance with the Company’s policies.  You will also be provided with a stock option to purchase one million shares
of MYOS common stock at an exercise price of $0.25 per share (as adjusted pursuant to the recent 1-for-50 reverse stock split),
which shall vest in four equal semi-annual installments over a two year period commencing on the sixth month anniversary of your
start date. You will be eligible to receive a bonus of up to fifty percent of your annual base salary, of which $50,000 per annum
is guaranteed (pro rated for any partial term).  The remaining portion of your bonus will be based on your performance and
the performance of the Company, as determined by the Board of Directors (or its compensation committee) in its sole discretion. 
Annual adjustments to salary, as well as bonus and additional stock option awards are at the sole discretion of the Board of Directors
(or its compensation committee).


 


You are entitled to participate in any company incentive plans or
programs, including an ESOP, in each case as determined by the Board of Directors (or its compensation committee), and you shall
receive the opportunity to participate fully in MYOS’s health insurance plan and any other benefits provided to all employees
of MYOS.


 


Your employment with MYOS Corporation deems you as an employee “at
will.” This means that it is not for any specified period of time and either you or MYOS Corporation can terminate your employment
at any time, and for any or no particular cause or reason.


 


We are excited about the future of MYOS and your contribution to
our success. I look forward to receiving your acceptance of this employment offer.  To formally accept this offer, please
sign in the appropriate place below and return an executed copy of this letter to me. Please retain an executed copy of this letter
for your own records.


 


Sincerely,


 


/s/ Peter A. Levy


 


Peter A. Levy


President


MYOS Corporation


 


Acknowledged and agreed as of the date set
forth below:


 





	 	/s/ Dr. Robert Ashton	 	Dated: February 12, 2014
	Name:	Dr. Robert Ashton
<page>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of AcuNetx, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

       2.     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company.

Date:    April 24, 2009


                                                 By: /s/ Dennis G. Geselowitz
                                                     ------------------------
                                                     Dennis G. Geselowitz,
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed "FILED" by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report,
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
Exhibit 12.1CertificationI, Carlos Alberto de Meira Fontes, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Petrobras Energía Participaciones,S.A.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance withgenerally accepted accounting principles;(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual reportthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditorsand the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: May 7, 2007         /s/ Carlos Alberto de Meira Fontes     Carlos Alberto de Meira Fontes  Chief Executive Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8377 

To amend the Advancing Research to Prevent Suicide Act to expand the 

areas of focus regarding childhood suicide, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2024 

Ms. CARAVEO (for herself, Mr. WILLIAMS of New York, Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. THANEDAR, Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI, Ms. 

LEE of California, Ms. TLAIB, and Ms. STANSBURY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology 

A BILL 

To amend the Advancing Research to Prevent Suicide Act 

to expand the areas of focus regarding childhood suicide, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Youth Suicide Preven5 tion Research Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. NSF RESEARCH REGARDING CHILDHOOD SUICIDE. 

7 Subsection (a) of section 3 of the Advancing Research 

8 to Prevent Suicide Act is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8377 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ after 

2 the semicolon; 

3 (2) by redesignating paragraph (5) as para4 graph (7); and 

5 (3) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol6 lowing new paragraphs: 

7 ‘‘(5) basic understanding of the role of adverse 

8 childhood experiences; 

9 ‘‘(6) basic understanding of the role of toxic 

10 stress in childhood; and’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 842 

To amend the Defense Base Act to exclude Guam. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 6, 2023 

Mr. MOYLAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Defense Base Act to exclude Guam. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INAPPLICABILITY OF DEFENSE BASE ACT TO 

4 GUAM. 

5 Subsection (b) of section 1 of the Defense Base Act 

6 (Chapter 357; 55 Stat. 622; 42 U.S.C. 1651) is amend7 ed— 

8 (1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘the period at 

9 the end’’ and inserting ‘‘and Guam;’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

11 paragraph: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 842 IH

1 ‘‘(5) the term ‘Territory or possession outside 

2 the continental United States’ does not include 

3 Guam.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 836 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 836

To redesignate Gravelly Point Park, located along the George Washington 
  Memorial Parkway in Arlington County, Virginia, as the Nancy Reagan 
                 Memorial Park, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 6, 2023

  Mr. Issa (for himself, Mr. Valadao, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. 
Buck, Mr. Carey, Mr. Babin, Mr. Obernolte, Mr. McClintock, Mrs. Kim of 
California, Mr. Mike Garcia of California, and Mr. Calvert) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To redesignate Gravelly Point Park, located along the George Washington 
  Memorial Parkway in Arlington County, Virginia, as the Nancy Reagan 
                 Memorial Park, 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. REDESIGNATION.

    Gravelly Point Park, located along the George Washington Memorial 
Parkway in Arlington County, Virginia, shall be redesignated as the 
``Nancy Reagan Memorial Park''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to Gravelly Point Park shall be deemed to 
be a reference to the Nancy Reagan Memorial Park.
                                 <all>
```
|Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Fidelity D&D Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Daniel J. Santaniello, Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as added byss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
              1934; andTo my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
              financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Date: March 29, 2004 | By:/s/Daniel J. Santaniello                               
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------
|                     | Daniel J. Santaniello,                                    
|                     | Interim Chief Executive Officerand Chief Operating Officer
No. 61945.

#### John Edgar Staren *v.*United States,

protest 226637-K (Nogales).

*556Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, G. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Manuel Alvarez, Appellant, v D & K Construction, Inc., Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Vol-mar Construction, Inc., et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 774]

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Barry Salman, J.), entered June 10, 1994, which, *inter alia,*granted the motion of third-party defendant-respondent Volmar Construction, Inc., and cross motion of defendant D & K Construction, Inc., to change venue to Rockland County and denied plaintiff’s motion to retain venue in Bronx County, unanimously modified, on the law, the. facts, and in the exercise *225of discretion, to deny the motion of Volmar Construction, Inc., and cross motion of D & K Construction, Inc., and to grant the plaintiff’s motion to retain venue in Bronx County, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The original parties to this action all resided outside of New York State when it was commenced, therefore venue was properly placed in the county designated by the plaintiff, Bronx County (CPLR 503 [a]). It is well settled that upon a motion made pursuant to CPLR 510 (3), the movant bears the burden of demonstrating that the convenience of witnesses would be better served by the change *(Cardona v Aggressive Heating,*180 AD2d 572; *Chimarios v Duhl,*152 AD2d 508). This showing must include (1) the identity of proposed witnesses, (2) the manner in which they will be inconvenienced by trial in the county in which the action was commenced, (3) that the witnesses have been contacted and are available and willing to testify for the movant, (4) the nature of the anticipated testimony, and (5) the manner in which the anticipated testimony is material to the issues raised in the case *(Cardona v Aggressive Heating,*supra;*Stavredes v United Skates,*87 AD2d 502). Moreover, a plaintiff who has designated a proper venue is under no obligation to make a showing that the county designated is in any way preferable to the one to which the change is sought, unless and until the party seeking the change has made an adequate showing as to the convenience of material witnesses and the furtherance of justice *(Cardona v Aggressive Heating, supra,*at 573).

In the present case, neither the movant nor cross movant on the motions to change venue sufficiently demonstrated the nature of the proposed witnesses’ testimony or the manner in which these witnesses might be inconvenienced by trial of the action in Bronx County. In fact, it was noted in the trial court’s memorandum decision that the movant and cross movant "have apparently never contacted any of [the] witnesses listed but evidently * * * acquired their names from the various reports submitted on this incident”. The motions to change venue should have been denied upon that finding alone. We do not address the portion of the order appealed which denied other motions and cross motions of the parties with leave to renew in Rockland County since, in view of the retention of venue in Bronx County, the trial court should pass on the merits of these motions in the first instance. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-76478) pertaining to the Stock Option Plan of Pilot
Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. of our report dated February 7, 2003, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Pilot Therapeutics Holdings, Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended December 31,
2002.

|                                          |  |                      
|----------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|                                          |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|                                         
|Greensboro, North Carolina
March 28, 2003 |  |
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 200218 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

I, Kevin W.Mooney, certify that:

1.            I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Worldspan, L.P.;

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

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

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

a)            designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)           evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

c)            disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.            The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)            all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)           any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

| Date: November 10, 2006 |   |                    |
|-------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                    |   | /s/ KEVIN W.  MOONEY    |
|                    |   | Kevin W. Mooney         |
|                    |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|                    |   | Worldspan, L.P.         |

 

----
#### Hub Powell v. State.

181 So. 901.

Opinion Filed June 8, 1938.

*660
      *Thos. D. Beasley,*for Plaintiff in Error.

*Cary D. Landis,*Attorney General, and *■Tyrus A. Nor-wood,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Buford, J.

Plaintiff in error, being convicted of the statutory offense of the larceny of “one bull, the property of D. C. Arrant,” sued out writ of error.

The transcript of the record shows that the State failed to prove that the offense, if committed at all, was committed in Holmes County, Florida.

Proof of venue is essential and cannot be left to guess work on the part of the jury. The only evidence on this point is:

“My name is D. C. Arrant and I live in Holmes County in the northeast corner, I think, beat 2 or 4, just over the line. I know Hub Powell and he lives in the same community where I live, about a,quarter of a mile from me. I owned a certain- bull yearling on about the 14th day of July and I missed him. Afterwards I found him in Hartford, Alabama. 'He used about two miles from my place. I had missed him about two months before I found him.”

So there is no evidence even that the bull “used” in Holmes County, Florida, and certainly not a vestige of evidence that it was stolen, if it was stolen, in that county.

Therefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

So ordered.

Reversed.

Wi-iitfifxd, Terrell, Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.