alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hester GOWIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27220.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1954.

No appearance for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is the driving, while intoxicated, of a motor vehicle upon a public *893highway. Punishment was assessed at a fine of $75 and confinement in jail for three days.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3350 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3350

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer for sale 
  current individual health insurance coverage in satisfaction of the 
minimum essential health insurance coverage requirement, 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 ``Keep Your Health Plan Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTH CARE PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP IT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (including any amendment made by 
such Act or by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 
2010), a health insurance issuer that has in effect health insurance 
coverage in the individual market as of January 1, 2013, may continue 
after such date to offer such coverage for sale during 2014 in such 
market outside of an Exchange established under section 1311 or 1321 of 
such Act (42 U.S.C. 18031, 18041).
    (b) Treatment as Grandfathered Health Plan in Satisfaction of 
Minimum Essential Coverage.--Health insurance coverage described in 
subsection (a) shall be treated as a grandfathered health plan for 
purposes of the amendment made by section 1501(b) of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 15, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3350

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To authorize health insurance issuers to continue to offer for sale 
  current individual health insurance coverage in satisfaction of the 
minimum essential health insurance coverage requirement, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105
- 2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION January 18, 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with Environmental Groups FROM: Angela Cullen TO: Docket EPA
- HQ
- OAR
- 2010
- 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on Tuesday, January 4, 2011 b etween several environmental groups and EPA and included the following individuals: Luke Tonafel (NRDC), Don Anair (UCS), Therese Langer (ACEEE), Siddiq Khan (ACEEE), Coralie Cooper (NESCAUM), Mark McCloud (EDF), Hil ary Sinnamon (EDF), Ben Sharpe (ICCT), Brendan Bell (UCS), David Marshall (CATF) EPA: By ron Bunker and Angela Cullen The discus sion focused on stringency of the proposed engine and vehicle standards, advanced technology

credits, labeling, and data collection.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 Exhibit 10.13.2

                            SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE

         This Second Amendment to Lease dated as of the 31st day of May, 2000 by
and between Wellsford/Whitehall Holdings, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability
company ("LANDLORD"), and MCK Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("TENANT").

                                    RECITALS

         WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant are parties to that certain Lease dated as
of January 12, 2000, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease dated
as of May 25th, 2000 (as amended, the "LEASE") with respect to space in the
building known and numbered as Cutler Lake Corporate Center, 117 Kendrick
Street, Needham, Massachusetts (the "BUILDING"), which space consists of
approximately 48,886 rentable square feet, as more particularly described
therein (the "PREMISES");

         WHEREAS, the calculation of the rentable square footage of the Building
erroneously included the rentable square footage of the Cafeteria; and

         WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant wish to amend the Lease to reflect the
accurate rentable square footage of the Building and the resulting recalculation
of Tenant's Share;

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein
contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree to amend
the Lease deleting "twenty-three and 03/100 percent (23.03%), (calculated as
48,886/212,227)" in Section 1.2 and substituting in place thereof "twenty-three
and 11/100 percent (23.11%), (calculated as 48,886/211,555)."

         All capitalized terms used herein, and not otherwise defined herein,
shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Lease.

         Except as expressly amended herein, all other terms of the Lease remain
unchanged and the Lease is in all respects, confirmed, ratified and approved and
on the date of this Amendment, subject to the terms hereof, in full force and
effect.



<PAGE>   2
         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have duly executed this Second
Amendment to Lease under seal in one or more counterparts as of the day and year
first above written.


                                LANDLORD:

                                WELLSFORD/WHITEHALL HOLDINGS, L.L.C., a Delaware
                                limited liability company


                                By:  /s/ Richard R. Previdi
                                    ----------------------------------
                                    Richard R. Previdi
                                    Authorized Signatory



                                TENANT:

                                MCK COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
                                a Delaware corporation


                                By:  /s/ Paul Zurlo
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Paul Zurlo
                                    Chief Financial Officer
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1721.

#### Lord Proprietary *against*Thomas Cockshut.

THIS was an action of debt, on an administration bond sued at the instance and for the use of *Daniel Dulany.*

The defendant pleaded the conditions performed and the plaintiff replied that *Daniel Dulany*recovered a judgment in *Calvert*County Court against the executor who had assets, and that he refused to pay him.

Rejoinder — confessing the assets with an *encore prist.*&c. Demurrer by reason of the departure.

T. *Bordley,*and *D.*Dulany, for *plaintiff*— M. Howard, and *M.*Jennifer, for defendants.

*41Dulany, for plaintiff,

Cites the case of *Wood*v. *Kirkham,*2 *Lev. 67.*where the covenant was to return all the effects of goods sent to *Barbadoes ;*the defendant pleaded performance. Replication, that such and such goods were sent, of which the defendant had returned no effects. The defendant rejoined, that he *had no order to return the effects of them.*On demurrer this was held to be a departure. The case of *House*v. Launder, 1 *Lev.*85. where obligation was to stand to an award, plea, no award. The plaintiff replies and sets forth an award and a breach. The defendant in his rejoinder confessed the award, but shewed that it was Void in law. This was held to be a departure. So in the case of *Morgan v. Man,*1 *Lev.*127. *Richards*v. *Hodges, 2*Saunders, 84. Obligation by reputed father to save the parish from the expense of maintenance of the child. General plea of *non-damnificatus.*The plaintiff replied and shewed how the parish was damnified. To which the defendant rejoined that he wished to support the child, but they would not permit him. This on demurrer was held to be a departure, that the defendant ought to have pleaded this at first. *Robers*v. Mariett, 2 *Saund.*189, 190. Condition to perform an award, plea, no award. Replication, shewing an award made. To which the defendant rejoined, confessing an award, but alleged that it had not been tendered according to the condition. Held to be a departure. *Ludw. 385. 421.*428. 1 *Sid.*10. 1 *Salk.*221. Administering well and truly relates only to the bringing in of the account, 1 *Salk.*316. *Ludw.*882. Compared the *English*bond and the *Maryland*bond together and insisted on the legality of the condition as to the payment of the debts, and that the single question on a proper issue was whether payment or non-payment, performance or non-performance.

Tender and *tout temps prist*comes too late when pay-is past, or when the bond is forfeited. *Salk.*622, 623. In the case of *Park*v. Middleton. 1 *Lutw.*419. pay*42ment of charges was pleaded, rejoinder an excuse for not paying ; that the attorney had not delivered his bill — was held to be a *departure.*— Lovelace v. Bickham, *Lutw.*424.

The Provincial Court gave judgment for the defendant, which judgment was reversed in the Court of Appeals at *July*term, 1721.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350   I, Sebastian Cassetta, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sielox, Inc. (the Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:  (1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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: March 31, 2008   /s/ Sebastian CassettaSebastian CassettaChief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 91-4606

 

BETTY LOU BEETS,

Petitioner-Appellee

Cross-Appellant,

versus

JAMES A. COLLINS, Director

Texas Department of Criminal

Justice, Institutional Division,

Repsondent-Appellant

Cross Appellee.

- - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

- - - - -

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion March 18, 1993, 5 Cir., 1993, _____F.2d,____)

(August 5, 1993)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM,

DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHE, WIENER, BARKSDALE, E. GARZA,

and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested

a poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of

the judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a

rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the

Court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. 
The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of

supplemental briefs.
SCOT-19-0000044

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE GAS COMPANY, LLC

dba HAWAII GAS FOR APPROVAL OF RATE INCREASES AND

REVISED RATE SCHEDULES AND RULES

________________________________________________________________

APPEAL FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

(Agency Appeal)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of appellee The Gas Company, LLC 

dba Hawaii Gas’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal, filed May 12, 2019;

the memorandum in support of the motion; appellants Life of the 

Land and Hui Aloha ʻAina o ka Lei Maile Aliʻi’s memorandum in 

opposition thereto, filed on May 17, 2019; the reply memorandum 

in support of the motion filed on June 5, 2019; and the records 

and files herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is denied without 

prejudice to consideration of the standing issue when this court 

addresses the merits of the case.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, July 24, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCOT-19-0000044

24-JUL-2019

12:28 PM
COHEN & KAMENY CPA'S PLLC
                       3530 Henry Hudson Parkway, Suite B
                            Riverdale, New York 10463


              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT


We hereby consent to the use in the Form 10 Registration Statement of our report
as of March 31, 2000, dated April 12, 2000, relating to the financial statements
of Charm Capital, Corp. that appear in such Form 10.


                           Cohen & Kameny CPA'S PLLC
                          Certified Public Accountants


Riverdale, New York
April 12, 2000




                                                                              60
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  Exhibit 10.20



                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO

                         1997 PERFORMANCE EQUITY PLAN OF

                         CARDINAL REALTY SERVICES, INC.


         WHEREAS, Lexford, Inc., formerly Cardinal Realty Services, Inc. (the
"Company"), established the 1997 Performance Equity Plan of Cardinal Realty
Services, Inc. (the "Plan") effective as of May 14, 1997; and

         WHEREAS, Section 16 of the Plan provides that the Plan may be amended 
at any time and from time to time by the Board of Directors of the Company (the
"Board").

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended effective as of October 15, 1997 as
set forth below.

1.       The name of the Plan shall be changed to:

         "1997 Performance Equity Plan of Lexford, Inc."

2.       Section 2.3 shall be changed to read as follows:

         "Board" means the Board of Directors of Lexford, Inc.

3.       Section 2.8 shall be changed to read as follows:

         "Company" means Lexford, Inc.

4.       Section 2.19 shall be changed to read as follows:

         "Plan" means the 1997 Performance Equity Plan of Lexford, Inc.

5.       Section 2.20 shall be changed to read as follows:

         "Rabbi Trust" means the Lexford, Inc. executive Deferred Compensation 
         Rabbi Trust.

6.       The last sentence of Section 8. Shall be replaced with the following:

"In addition, a Participant may make a written election to defer receipt of any
or all dividends paid with respect to any Shares subject to a deferral election
as described in this Section 8. until the time at which the Shares in respect of
such dividends are payable become taxable to the individual. In order to be
effective with respect to any dividend 




                                       9
<PAGE>   2


payable, such election must be made at least ten (10) days prior to the date
that such dividend is declared by the Board. A Participant may elect to defer a
percentage of any dividends payable, and to receive the remainder, provided that
any such election shall be made in increments of ten percent (10%). To the
extent that a Participant does not elect to defer any portion of cash dividends
payable with respect to any Shares, such dividends shall be paid to the
Participant when such Shares vest under the terms of this Plan or, if previously
vested, when such cash dividends are paid with respect to such Shares. Prior to
the time the Participant vests in Shares, cash dividends payable with respect to
such Shares shall be automatically deferred into the Rabbi Trust, invested under
the terms thereof, and to the extent not forfeited under the terms of this Plan,
distributed in accordance with the foregoing."

7.       All references to the Plan to "Lexreit" and to "Lexreit Shares" shall
         be deleted.




                                       2
Exhibit 31.2 CFO CertificationI, Egbert Ratering, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Sutura, Inc.; 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 thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe small business issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 18, 2005        /s/ Egbert Ratering   Egbert Ratering   Chief Financial Officer
- -- ·- t. J ;, -~ ~· . 

__ {i81{UJtf(~31 ~o(5 

- ~- en uk r 0 f- ~f;t_!VrtfJ !tl lf?i!_Yk!_s () [ 1-e~t~ RECEIVED IN _ 

__ 1]_(). 5Pt /)36f - · ~QF-CRJMJNAl-APPEAtS 

FEB-2-6-2015 --

--~-1l~7.f7/ ( 

Abel Acosta, Clerk 

~-E£~ r.t -o51l=-tY--l~i?.b- osf]3-0!±. - - _ ~ e(X u_e:sL£12 &- '' L~ k{ _ Re.P-r~se;v-Jrrr~rD {\)/) -

bih~'&-i uest fo La +etJ~ tJ ll · . - &t e lf_ecUtrrJT E uE"f )) -

: JJ~J?!J bfY! dl_,c1f1~ i!otJ~~ 

-l~fif'A w~'t LW.}-_!A- · ¥o ___ ~ ~~· --- . 

~ ~fl-esfr5/i5~ +> hC 'fA~ ~~~·Jiiilf BRief . -· 

mat-musf BG Hkl WifJlw£ 3D betY-s v !~ ~', 

, ~=filccY-; ~jftv~ fl6f &~N tvhi1'1!~ 

;1~~1iJit( · ~CL~f ~ ~rese~fJ ~ I 

: ~oitJiiL3 'fV\~. ~lJb fJuL '" l 

lirJ ~.1 

.\ 

.:'JJ4R~S~ fJ, Z_Ms~ ,wot;E;l-aE~ 13 

;;_~f Itt!_ L;CfeiJsrofJ .:(; fl~ 

v 
I A - .. • - . ( 

[/}_DI1fJ /1!1til!A/tl~-. -/t3-s /-sh+--~r;J-cv--~---,--- --,----H---HU-~~-~-'\..---L-1. . , 

' w 6 /A_~ q fldff&J- tJJfJ{)M?fd__, 

0 (/ I ' 

· Boo K:rtJ 1t !3 ot2 f 3155 < 

~,~--~~jft~·~_·t_~~~-0_6~~7~~~+-·~~~· ~----------'-

) 

(
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust V and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding V, L.P. (the  "Partnership")
for the  period  ended  December 26,  2003 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I, John J.  Fosina,
Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 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:

(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
    Partnership.




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING V, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ JOHN J. FOSINA
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    John J. Fosina *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: March 22, 2004
_____________________

*  John J. Fosina functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
LAWRENCE RASHUAN JEANPIERRE, Petitioner

v.

UNITED STATES, Respondent

______________________

2022

- 1389

______________________ Appeal from the Board of Correction for Army Records in No. AR20170008831.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before P ROST
, R EYNA
, and C UNNINGHAM
, Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R

Responding to the court’s February 17, 2022

, order toshow cause, the United States urges dismissal of this appeal from a decision of the Board of Correction for Army Records (the “Board”)

. Lawrence Rashuan Jean P ierre submits a mo tion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis but has not responded to the order to show cause

. Case: 22-1389 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2022JEANPIERRE v. US 2

This court ’s limited subject matter jurisdiction does not extend to appeals directly from the Board

. 28 U.S.C. § 1295

. When this court lacks jurisdiction, it may, u nder 28 U.S.C. § 1631, transfer a case to another court where it could have been brought . While the United States indicates that the United States Court of Federal Claims wouldhave jurisdiction over this matter generally, it urges dismissal on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations would bar any claim before the Court of Federal Claims . W e deem it the better course to transfer the case

to the Court of Federal Claims to make a determination as to the application of the statute of limi tations in the first instance.

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 , t his case and all transmittals are trans ferred to the United States Court of Federal Claims.

April 18

, 2022 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 22-1389 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 04/18/2022