alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fischer et al. *v.*Hunsberger, Appellant.

Submitted November 17, 1943.

Before Keller, P. J., Baldridge, Stadteeld, Hirt, Kenworthey and Reno, JJ. (Rhodes, J., absent).

*Hugh Roberts,*for appellant.

No appearance was entered for brief filed for appellees.

December 9, 1943:

Per Curiam,

The defendant has appealed from an order of the court below refusing to open and review a judgment, entered June 24, 1941, upon the verdict of a jury in an *573action of ejectment, after that judgment had been affirmed by this court on April 15, 1942, (148 Pa. Superior Ct. 48125 A. 2d 828), a re-argument refused by us on April 28, 1942, an appeal denied by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (148 Pa. Superior Ct. xxiv), and petition for certiorari to this court denied by the Supreme Court of the United States (317 U. S. 680), and rehearing of the same denied December 7, 1942 (317 U. S. 711).

This unusual attempt to review a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in a common law action, which judgment had been definitively affirmed by an appellate court over a year before, was filed on May 17, 1943, on the ground of after-discovered evidence. It was dismissed by the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County on June 7,1943, because it did not come within the well-established rules governing the granting of new trials because of after-discovered evidence.1

We know of no authority given a trial court to open and review a judgment entered on a verdict in a com*574mon law action, because of alleged after-discovered evidence, after the judgment hag been finally adjudicated and affirmed by an appellate court; but passing by that question and considering the application as if it were a motion for a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence, an examination of the record fails to disclose any reversible error in the action of the court below.

Order affirmed.

1

 “The rules governing the granting of new trials because of after-discovered evidence are well settled in this State. To entitle a defendant to a new trial on this ground the evidence must have been discovered since the trial, and be such as could not have been obtained at the trial by the use of reasonable diligence; it must not be simply corroborative or cumulative, or merely to impeach the credibility of a witness; and it must be such as would likely result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted: *Com. v. Brady,*76 Pa. Superior Ct. 488; *Com. v. Carter,*272 Pa. 551 [116 A. 409]; *Com. v. Flanagan,*7 W. & S. 415. Such an application is not governed by the strict technical rules applicable to a writ of error, but is addressed to the sound discretion of the court: *Boyd v. Boyd,*1 Watts 365, 366; and the exercise of this discretion by the court in refusing a new trial will be reversed on appeal only where it has been clearly abused: *Com. v. Hine,*213 Pa. 97, [62 A. 369]; *Hunter v. Bremer,*256 Pa. 257, 266, [100 A. 809]; *Goldstein v. B. Fallowfield Twp.,*43 Pa. Superior Ct. 158, 167”; *Com. v. Mellon,*81 Pa. Superior Ct. 20, 25-26.
#### ACF INDUSTRIES, INC.; General American Transportation Corporation; General Electric Railcar Services Corporation, Pullman Leasing Company; Railbox Company; Railgon Company; Trailer Train Company; Union Tank Car Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF the STATE OF OREGON, Richard A. Munn, in his capacity as Director of the Department of Revenue of the State of Oregon, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-35402.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

June 1, 1994.

Before: JAMES R. BROWNING, CANBY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

The judgment of this court, 961 F.2d 813, has been reversed. Therefore, this case is ordered remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in *Department of Revenue of Oregon*
      *824
      *v. ACF Industries, Inc., et al.,*- U.S. - 114 S.Ct. 843, 127 L.Ed.2d 165 (1994).
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 11.1 Statement Re: Computation of Per-Share Earnings        EXHIBIT 11.1



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Three Months Ended September 30
                                                                 -------------------------------
                                                                      1996              1995
                                                                  -----------       -----------
<S>                                                               <C>               <C>      
Primary
    Average common shares outstanding                               9,123,096         7,153,770
    Net effect of dilutive options and warrants-
       based on treasury stock method (or modified treasury
       method if applicable) using average market price               860,281           581,187
                                                                  -----------       -----------
                                                                    9,983,377         7,734,957
                                                                  -----------       -----------

    Net Income (loss)                                             $ 1,290,625       $  (210,502)
                                                                  -----------       -----------

    Per Share amount                                              $      0.13       $     (0.03)
                                                                  -----------       -----------






Fully Diluted

    Average common shares outstanding                               9,123,096         7,153,770
    Net effect of dilutive options and warrants-
       based on treasury stock method (or modified treasury
       method if applicable) using year-end market price ..           884,305           581,187
                                                                  -----------       -----------
                                                                   10,007,401         7,734,957
                                                                  -----------       -----------

    Net (Loss) Income                                             $ 1,290,625       $  (210,502)
                                                                  -----------       -----------

    Per Share amount                                              $      0.13       $     (0.03)
                                                                  -----------       -----------
</TABLE>


                                       23
Exhibit 3.63
  STATE OF ALABAMA
    
    
    )JEFFERSON COUNTY
    
    
    )
 ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION
OF
LSI ALABAMA, LLC
  1. The name of the limited liability company is LSI ALABAMA, LLC2. The existence of the limited liability company shall commence on the date of the filing of
these Articles of Organization in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Jefferson County,
Alabama, and its duration shall be perpetual; provided, however, that the limited liability
company shall be dissolved (a) upon the written consent of all of the members; (b) as provided
in the Operating Agreement; or (c) as may be required by the Alabama Limited Liability Company
Act.3. The purpose for which this limited liability company is organized is to engage in the
transaction of any or all lawful business for which limited liability companies may be
organized under the laws of the State of Alabama.4. The location and mailing address of the initial registered office shall be 2311 Highland
Avenue South, Birmingham, Alabama 35205, and the name of the initial registered agent at said
address shall be Maurice L. Shevin.5. The name and mailing address of the initial member of the limited liability company is as
follows:
 NAME
    
    MAILING ADDRESSLenders Service, Inc.
    
    700 Cherrington ParkwayCoraopolis, PA 15108
   th
 This instrument was prepared by:
    
    LENDERS SERVICE, INC.Bradley J. Sklar, Esq.
    
    (Member)P.O. Box 55727Birmingham, AL 35255-5727By:
    
    /s/ Joseph J. MurinJoseph J. MurinIts:
    
    President and CEO
Exhibit 99.3
 FIFTH
AMENDMENT
TOAGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS
 THIS
FIFTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY AND ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS Amendment GERA DANBURY LLC, Seller MATRIX CONNECTICUT, LLC, Buyer
 WHEREAS, Agreement
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 WHEREAS,
 NOW THEREFORE,
 Defined Terms
 Extension of Inspection Period
 Deposits
 Ratification




---



##### 



Facsimile .
 Counterparts .
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 SELLER:
GERA DANBURY LLC,a Delaware limited 
liability companyBy:
    /s/ Jeff HansonName:
    Jeff HansonTitle:
    Chief Investment OfficerBUYER:
MATRIX CONNECTICUT, LLC,a Delaware limited
liability companyBy:
    /s/ Glen NelsonName:
    Glen NelsonTitle:
    Manager
EXHIBIT 32.2
  CERTIFICATION
    OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF
    DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.
  Form 10-Q Form 10-Q)
  Form 10-Q
  Form 10-Q
  Joseph
    S. Tesoriero
   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
   53
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, John Fuller, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of In Vivo Medical
Diagnostics, Inc. for the quarter ended January 31, 2005;

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 annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer and
have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer is made known to us
by others, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being
prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

<PAGE>

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions);

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

March 22, 2005




/s/ John Fuller
-------------------------------------
John Fuller
President and Chief Executive Officer
PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION


Exhibit 10.19

PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION




2003 STOCK OPTION PLAN




OPTION CERTIFICATE




This Certificate, when executed by a duly authorized officer of Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation (the "Company"), describes an Option to purchase shares of the Common Stock of the Company under the terms of the 2000 Stock Option Plan, as adopted by the Company's Board of Directors and approved by the Company's stockholders (as the same may from time to time be amended, the "Plan"), granted to the Optionee named herein.




1.

Optionee:   «FIRST»  «LAST»




2.

Number of shares of Common Stock subject to Option:  «NUMBER»




3.

Option Price Per Share:  «PRICE»




4.

Date of Grant:  «GRANT DATE»




5.

Expiration Date of Option:  «10 YEARS FROM DATE OF GRANT »




6.

This Option is:

______________   An Incentive Stock Option




______________   A Non-Qualified Stock Option




7.

Does Optionee have the right to tender shares of the Common Stock in

payment of all or a portion of the Option Price?




Yes  _______________

No  _________________




This Option is subject to, and governed by, all of the terms of the Plan, including the provisions with respect to acceleration and early termination.  Terms defined in the Plan are used in this Certificate as so defined.




This Option shall vest and become exercisable in four equal cumulative annual installments, commencing on the first anniversary of the Date of Grant.




This Certificate is not a security and does not represent the Option described herein.  Certain terms of the Option, including the exercise price and the number of shares of Common Stock subject to the Option, may change as provided in the Plan or as a result of a partial exercise of the Option.  The actual exercise price and number of shares of Common Stock subject to the Option are as reflected on the books and records of the Company on the relevant date.  Neither this Certificate nor the Option represented hereby are assignable or transferable by the Optionee except as otherwise permitted under the Plan.




PHILLIPS-VAN HEUSEN CORPORATION




BY:










_____________________________________________

CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ex10_2.htm










Tompkins Financial Corporation 8-K


 


EXHIBIT 10.2


 


 


Summary of Compensation Arrangements for Named Executive Officers of Tompkins Financial Corporation







The three major components of the Company’s executive officer compensation are: (i) base salary; (ii) annual bonus; and (iii) long term, equity based incentive awards.  Following is a description of the compensation arrangements for named executive officers of the Company (which officers were determined by reference to the Company’s Proxy Statement on Schedule 14-A, filed April 13, 2011) that were approved by the Independent Directors of the Company at the meeting of the Board of Directors held on January 24, 2012, upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors:







Annual Bonus







Cash award bonus payments for performance in fiscal 2011:





 



	 Steven S. Romaine  	 	$	175,000	 
	 James W. Fulmer 	 	$	84,500	 
	 Francis M. Fetsko	 	$	70,950	 
	 Gerald J. Klein, Jr.  	 	$	57,000	 
	 Robert B. Bantle 	 	$	51,700	 





 




The foregoing bonuses will be paid during the first quarter of fiscal 2012. The Compensation Committee considers a number of quantitative and qualitative performance factors to evaluate the performance of its Named Executive Officers.  These performance factors include, but are not limited to: (i) achievement of individual goals; (ii) contribution to business unit results; (iii) contribution to corporate results measured by (a) the Company’s net income as compared to the Company’s internal targets, (b) increases in earnings per share of the Company’s common stock for the latest 12 months, (c) the Company’s return on assets, as ranked in the Federal Reserve Bank Holding Company Performance Report (Peer Group percentile), (d) increases in the Company’s stock price over 12 months, and (e) the Company’s return on equity, as ranked in the Federal Reserve Bank Holding Company Performance Report (Peer Group percentile).
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5130 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5130

  To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit the Secretary of a 
military department to grant veterans access to certain fitness centers 
   under the jurisdiction of such Secretary, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2018

  Ms. Tenney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit the Secretary of a 
military department to grant veterans access to certain fitness centers 
   under the jurisdiction of such Secretary, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring Veterans Access to Military 
Fitness Facilities Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. ACCESS FOR VETERANS TO CERTAIN FITNESS CENTERS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 152 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 2569. FITNESS CENTERS: ACCESS FOR VETERANS.

    ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of a 
military department may grant veterans access to a fitness center 
that--
            ``(1) is under the jurisdiction of such Secretary; and
            ``(2) is operated by a geographically separated unit that 
        is located not less than 100 miles from the supporting base of 
        such unit.
    ``(b) Factors for Consideration.--In determining whether to grant 
veterans access to a fitness center under subsection (a), the Secretary 
concerned shall consider--
            ``(1) whether the commander who oversees the fitness center 
        has determined--
                    ``(A) that such fitness center has the capacity and 
                infrastructure required to support veterans; and
                    ``(B) that granting veterans such access would not 
                impede the readiness of members of the armed forces on 
                active duty who use the fitness center;
            ``(2) the effect that granting veterans such access would 
        have on the operating and maintenance expenses of the fitness 
        center; and
            ``(3) any additional criteria determined by the Secretary 
        concerned.
    ``(c) Definition.--In this section, the term `veteran' has the 
meaning given such term in section 101 of title 38.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:

``2569. Fitness centers: access for veterans.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of In Vivo Medical Diagnostics, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended January 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, John Fuller, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to In Vivo Medical Diagnostics, Inc. and will be retained by In Vivo
Medical Diagnostics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.





March 22, 2005                             /s/ John Fuller
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John Fuller
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Gary B. JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT; * et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-55846.

D.C. No. CV-01-07614-AHM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*468Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.**

Decided Jan. 22, 2003.

Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 John Ashcroft is substituted for Janet Reno, as Attorney General, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 42(c)(2).

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Gary B. Jefferson appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his action against various federal officials for failure to comply with a court order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, *Ferdik v. Bonzelet,*963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jefferson’s action. The district court’s order dismissing the original complaint without prejudice for improper service and lack of federal jurisdiction gave Jefferson a deadline for filing an amended complaint and instructed him to allege a coherent claim establishing federal jurisdiction. Although the order warned Jefferson that failure to comply would result in dismissal with prejudice, Jefferson’s first amended complaint was filed late and did not allege a coherent federal claim. Consequently, the district court properly dismissed Jefferson’s action with prejudice. *See Ferdik,*963 F.2d at 1260-61; *see also Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co.,*775 F.2d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985) (describing the substantiality doctrine).

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. *R.*36-3.