alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Date: YYlondtuj J 1/ ~uJ .20/S ({, 1: 2frYI 

Meeting: Meek Uv~tn 4fY'M OJ0--fVP I 

Rule(s) Discussed: ~ fYDrDS O~ f 

Written Materials? Yes/No 

Name Organization Phone N urn her 

I ~0 {q~v.(.JA-@v v ~A- ~- &f2_ 

?C\\rrc~ ~e l~v f}P\ d-DJ. (v<j~ ~~q~ 

l:::1~)j_[J{ ~ ( VtOl:: A F-PJ-1 d{)d-Hd- ~5hf0h tV\ Sh t.1/GYJ Nv c;-P!;-occ SbV-!Jt:D 

L~.At-~ 1\Y~ I )- p ...r=- 96 2- - ~ Lt:dC) 

~ot~'-e\- flL~k_ 8'A -o-R ~ 4 - _3_d-.'J~ 

1ftlf 11(}6-/; A} ff r flfl ~CtJ. ss J e !16 ~ 

r~~- ~-\~ . 

IJFfl"' ;?;2- toL &,~o .) - £c4 I>Jo~/Jc.vk_ A-F/'1>? :2 IS 2 S$""'2..- 8Lf 7 'I 

APr ' 

Er;k &n'h'.> t ~01- ~~~ 8c{.>o 

I 

Ge~ rl'loaclv Ai=?rvl. t3!0J. -S'Sif -23 t-t 8~ 

5QL ~~~<--~ ~ At:z o<. o/ C""8 ,.( - 8S ~ ~ 

J /
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**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 Black Nickel Acquisition Corp. III
      (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew
      Reckles, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 Company.




/s/
                Andrew RecklesAndrew
                Reckles
              Principal
                Financial OfficerMay
                11, 2007
#### William J. Keller Sr. et al., Appellants, v Village of Castleton-on-Hudson, Respondent.

Mahoney, P. J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Travers, J.), entered February 9, 1990 in Rensselaer County, which, in an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs and defendant own parcels of adjoining land located off U.S. Route 9 in the Town of Schodack, Rensselaer County. In June 1987, plaintiffs commenced this RPAPL article 15 action to quiet title to one acre of disputed property situated along the parties’ borders. After answering, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that plaintiffs could not prove ownership of the disputed parcel. Although defendant submitted its deed, which included a description of the disputed property, defendant did not seek a judgment in its favor declaring that it owned the property *(see,*RPAPL 1517). Defendant has, however, apparently initiated a separate, currently pending, RPAPL article 15 action against plaintiffs for the same or similar relief.

Supreme Court subsequently granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, ostensibly because of plaintiffs’ failure of proof. The court, however, stated that its decision did not "affirmatively determine the defendant to be the fee owner of [the] area in question”. Plaintiffs have appealed.

We reverse without reaching the merits. RPAPL article 15 requires that judgments made pursuant thereto shall declare the validity or invalidity of "any claim to any estate or interest established by any party to the action” (RPAPL 1521 [1]). As such, Supreme Court’s order dismissing the complaint without making such a declaration was insufficient *(see, Orrino v Norbon Homes,*35 AD2d 732). Accordingly, we remit this case to Supreme Court for further proceedings as may be necessary in its discretion and for the rendition of an appropriate judgment pursuant to RPAPL article 15.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not *980inconsistent with this court’s decision. Mahoney, P. J., Mikoll, Levine, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 11562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4526]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, as Amended (5 U.S.C. App.), Notice Is Hereby Given of the 
Following Meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel Review of Minority Biomedical 
Research Support Genetics Applications.
    Date: March 19-20, 2012.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency--Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Saraswathy Seetharam, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, 
Room 3An12C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2763, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cdbea8a8b9a5acbfaca0be8da3a4aaa0bee3a3a4a5e3aaa2bb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="88fbededfce0e9fae9e5fbc8e6e1efe5fba6e6e1e0a6efe7fe">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 21, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-4526 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hsieh Ching, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a *851judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), rendered July 24, 1990.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed *(see, People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1








Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,


18 U.S.C. § 1350





I, Louis J. Brothers, Chief Executive Officer of Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc. (the “Corporation”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, to my knowledge that:





1.  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto on Form 10-Q/A of the Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Corporation.





Date: April 23, 2012


By:  /s/ Louis J. Brothers


Louis J. Brothers


President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Chairman of the Board








The information contained in this Exhibit 32.1 is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              1996         1997         1998         1999         2000
                                            -------      -------      -------      -------      -------

<S>                                         <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
FIXED CHARGES:
Interest expense including
   amortization of debt issuance costs      $ 1,155      $ 6,951      $12,491      $16,447      $20,108
Interest on rent expense (1)                    820        1,359        2,463        3,419        3,453
                                            -------      -------      -------      -------      -------
Total fixed charges                           1,975        8,310       14,954       19,866       23,561

EARNINGS:
Income before income taxes                   14,299       30,800       53,757       51,830        6,803
Fixed charges                                 1,975        8,310       14,954       19,866       23,561
                                            -------      -------      -------      -------      -------
Income before fixed charges                  16,274       39,110       68,711       71,696       30,364

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES              8.2          4.7          4.6          3.6          1.3
</TABLE>


(1)      The Company believes one-third of rent expense represents a reasonable
         approximation of the interest factor.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1166 

CAF 13-00739 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF BONNIE A. WILL, 

PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V ORDER

JEFFREY M. ZDROJEWSKI, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

TRIGILIO CIAMBRONE PARTNERSHIP, BUFFALO (ELIZABETH J. CIAMBRONE OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

J. ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC, WILLIAMSVILLE (JOAN CASILIO ADAMS OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT. 

CATHERINE E. NAGEL, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BUFFALO. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Kevin M.

Carter, J.), entered April 11, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family

Court Act article 6. The order determined the petition withdrawn. 

Now, upon reading and filing the stipulation of discontinuance

signed by the attorneys for the parties on September 8, 2014,

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed 

without costs upon stipulation.

Entered: November 14, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 70481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24590]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twelfth RTCA SC-231 TAWS Plenary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Twelfth RTCA SC-231 TAWS Plenary.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of Twelfth RTCA SC-231 TAWS Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held November 07-09, 2016, 09:00 a.m.-05:00 
p.m. and November 10, 09:00 a.m.-01:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th 
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Morrison at rmorrison@rtca.org 
or 202-330-0654, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 
910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at 
(202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the Twelfth RTCA SC-231 TAWS Plenary. The 
agenda will include the following:

Monday, November 7th--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

(1) Welcome/Introduction
(2) Administrative Remarks
(3) Agenda Review
(4) Summary of Working Group activities
(5) Disposition of Final Review and Comment (FRAC) Comments
(6) Other Business
(7) Date and Place of Next Meeting

Tuesday, November 8th--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

Continuation of Plenary

Wednesday, November 9th--9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

Continuation of Plenary

Thursday, November 10th--9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.

Continuation of Plenary
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 6, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17 
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-24590 Filed 10-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Fifth Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement



 Exhibit 10(ai)(5) 
 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 
 This Fifth Amendment to Purchase and Sale Agreement
is dated as of this 30th day of October, 2006 between RICHARDSON ELECTRONICS, LTD., a Delaware corporation
(“Seller”) and TAB Construction Company, an Illinois corporation (“Purchaser”). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, Seller is the owner of fee simple title, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except for the Permitted Exceptions, of that certain to
real estate located in the City of Geneva, Kane County, Illinois, commonly known as 715 Hamilton Street, Geneva, Illinois and has executed a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated August 4, 2005 with Purchaser in the connection with the sale of the
Property as defined therein to Purchaser (the “Purchase Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, on December 16, 2005, January 31,
2006, February 17, 2006, and June 7, 2006, respectively, the parties executed the First, Second, Third and Fourth Amendments to Purchase and Sale Agreement and have agreed to further amend the Purchase and Sale Agreement. 

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, parties shall hereby agree as follows: 
 1. DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD. The parties have agreed that the Due
Diligence Period has expired. 
 2. CLOSING DATE. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Purchase Agreement,
the parties have agreed to close the transaction on or before November 30, 2006. 
 3. FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. As otherwise
set forth herein, the Purchase Agreement remains in full force and effect. 
 4. COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed
in counterparts, both of which when taken together shall constitute a single original. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Fifth Amendment as of the date and year first
written above. 
  

			
	SELLER:
	
	Richardson Electronics, Ltd., a Delaware corporation
	
	/S/ DAVID J. GILMARTIN
	By:	 	David J. Gilmartin
	Title:	 	Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

  

			
	PURCHASER:
	
	TAB Construction Company
	
	/S/ TRACY BURNIDGE
	By:	 	Tracy Burnidge
	Title:	 	President
Exhibit 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         The  undersigned,  members of the Board of  Directors  and  Officers of
SALTON SEA FUNDING CORPORATION,  a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and the
following companies:

   Salton Sea Brine Processing L.P.          Salton Sea Power Generation L.P.
   Fish Lake Power LLC                       Vulcan Power Company
   CalEnergy Operating Corporation           Salton Sea Royalty LLC
   VPC Geothermal LLC                        San Felipe Energy Company
   Conejo Energy Company                     Niguel Energy Company
   Vulcan/BN Geothermal Power Company        Leathers, L.P.
   Del Ranch, L.P.                           Elmore, L.P.
   Salton Sea Power L.L.C.                   CE Turbo LLC
   CE Salton Sea Inc.

hereby  constitute  and appoint  Steven A.  McArthur and Douglas L. Anderson and
each of them, as his/her true and lawful  attorney-in-fact  and agent, with full
power of substitution and  resubstitution,  for and in his stead, in any and all
capacities,  to sign on his behalf the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the
fiscal year ending  December 31, 2000 and to execute any amendments  thereto and
to file  the  same,  with all  exhibits  thereto,  and all  other  documents  in
connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission and applicable
stock  exchanges,  with the full power and  authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing  necessary  or  advisable  to all intents and purposes as he
might or could do in  person,  hereby  ratifying  and  confirming  all that said
attorney-in-fact and agent or his substitute or substitutes,  may lawfully do or
cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Dated as of March 29, 2001.



/s/ Patrick J. Goodman
PATRICK J. GOODMAN

/s/ Larry Kellerman
LARRY KELLERMAN

/s/ John Harrison
JOHN HARRISON
exv10w68



 





Exhibit 10.68




Amendment to Stock Option Agreement




     This Amendment to Stock Option Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made on the ___ day of
December, 2006 by and between Cyberonics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and
                                                             (“Optionee”).



     Whereas, the Company and Optionee entered into a Stock Option Agreement having a grant date of
May 2, 2001 (the “Agreement”); and



     Whereas, the Company has undergone an extensive investigation of its option grant practices
and procedures; and



     Whereas, that investigation has revealed that the options granted under the Agreement were
misdated; and



     Whereas, the Company and Optionee have mutually agreed to amend the Agreement to modify the
Date of Grant and Exercise Price per Share;



     Now, Therefore, for a good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:



     1. Section I, Notice of Stock Option Grant of the Agreement is amended to delete the stated
Date of Grant and Exercise Price per Share and substitute the following:



	 	 	 
	“Date of Grant

	 	April 30, 2001
	 
	 	 
	Exercise Price per Share

	 	$11.47”






     2. This Amendment supersedes all prior agreements, amendments, understandings, negotiations,
and discussion, oral or written, related to such subject matter.



     3. Except as expressly amended herein, the terms of the Agreement remain unchanged.



     4. This Amendment may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, with the
same effect as if the signatures thereto and hereto were upon the same instrument. Signatures by
facsimile shall bind the parties hereto.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	OPTIONEE

	 	 	 	CYBERONICS, INC.
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	John A. Riccardi	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Chief Financial Officer	 	 






 









 






Schedule of Optionees




	 	 	 
	Name	 	 
	Appel, Stanley

	 	 
	Coelho, Tony
	 	 
	Olsen, Alan
	 	 
	Reese, Terry
	 	 
	Strauss, Michael
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7281

ANTHONY HUGH CARTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JOHN R. WILLIAMS; LEWIS A. BABB; LIEUTENANT

CARTER; SERGEANT BOYD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-95-400-5-H)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 17, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Hugh Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing three

of four Defendants. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1988);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.,

337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the

appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Benson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.), rendered September 29, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, burglary in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges against black potential jurors, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim; the Supreme Court, Queens County, is to file its report with all convenient speed.

The records reveal that during jury selection, the defendant’s counsel repeatedly objected to the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges to exclude black members of the venire and contended that such challenges were being exercised in a discriminatory pattern in violation of *Batson v*
      *721
      *Kentucky*(476 US 79). While the record is somewhat unclear, it appears that the prosecutor peremptorily challenged either five or six of the nine or 10 black venirepersons. The Supreme Court summarily rejected the defendant’s claim without requiring the prosecutor to state on the record the reasons for the exclusion of each black potential juror.

Under the circumstances presented, the defendant adequately made out a prima facie case of racial discrimination *(see, People v Jenkins,*75 NY2d 550; *People v Bozella,*150 AD2d 471). Accordingly, the matter is remitted for a hearing concerning the reasons for the exercise of peremptory challenges against black potential jurors, and the appeal from the judgment of conviction is held in abeyance in the interim.

We find unpersuasive the defendant’s contention that his right to be present at a material stage of his trial was violated because he was not present at an in-chambers conference regarding the exercise of challenges to potential jurors. The Court of Appeals has held that such a conference does not constitute a material part of trial at which a defendant must be present *(see, People v Velasco,*77 NY2d 469). Inasmuch as the defendant had an opportunity to consult with his counsel prior to the making of challenges, and the *voir dire*and recording of challenges were performed in open court in his presence, his right to be present was not compromised *(see, People v Velasco, supra).*

Similarly unavailing is the defendant’s claim that he was denied *Rosario*material by the prosecution *(see, People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286, *cert denied*368 US 866). An examination of the telephone call log sheet in question demonstrates that it does not constitute *Rosario*material.

Finally, we discern no error in the trial court’s marshaling of the alibi evidence in this case. However, even if we were to conclude that the court should have given the jury the supplemental marshaling requested by the defendant, we nevertheless would find the refusal to do so harmless under the circumstances of this case. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Fiber, JJ., concur.