alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ESTATE OF EDMUND D. SIMON, ESTATE 

OF MARJORIE P. SIMON ESTATE OF 

ETHEL SIMON, PATRICIA SIMON, 

EXECUTRIX AND AISHA BRADLEY

v.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND 

FAIRMOUNT PARK SUMMIT PARK EAST 

GENERAL PARTNERSHIP UNIVERSITY 

CITY HOUSING COMPANY

PETITION OF: PATRICIA SIMON AND 

AISHA BRADLEY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 50 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4

th day of November, 2022, the Application to Exceed the Word 

Count is DENIED. Petitioners are allotted 15 days in which to file a perfected Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal. No extensions will be granted absent exceptional circumstances.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.33-40140 and No. 333-13061) pertaining to the American Medical Technologies,Inc. stock option plans of our report dated March 15, 2003 with respect to thefinancial statements of American Medical Technologies, Inc. included in theAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 
|   | /s/ Hein +  Associates LLP |   |
|--------|----------------------------|--------|
|   | HEIN +  ASSOCIATES LLP     |

 

Houston, Texas

April 14, 2003

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



The undersigned executive officer of ESB Financial Corporation (the
Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Charles P. EvanoskiCharles P. EvanoskiGroup Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer




Date: March 11, 2005



Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ESB Financial Corporation and will be retained by ESB Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED   CONDENSED   CONSOLIDATED   FINANCIAL   STATEMENTS  INCLUDED  IN  THE
REGISTRANT'S  FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001012270
<NAME>                        CollaGenex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         14,620
<SECURITIES>                                   3,496
<RECEIVABLES>                                  66
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               18,635
<PP&E>                                         166
<DEPRECIATION>                                 68
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,587
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       86
<OTHER-SE>                                     16,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   16,159
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,626)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,626)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,626)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.54)
        

</TABLE>
Diagram of Use at Sites Controlled by the Submitter
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3142]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated October 8, 1999, and published in the Federal 
Register on October 18, 1999, (64 FR 56225), Cedarburg Laboratories, 
Inc., 870 Badger Circle, Grafton, Wisconsin 53024, made application by 
letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as 
a bulk manufacturer of propiram (9649), a basic class of controlled 
substance listed in Schedule I.
    The firm will manufacture propiram in the process of manufacturing 
other targeted test compounds for another firm.
    DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, 
Section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cedarburg 
Laboratories, Inc. to manufacture propiram is consistent with the 
public interest at this time. DEA has investigated the company to 
ensure that the company's registration is coninspection and testing of 
the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's 
compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's 
background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 
0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the 
above firm for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic class 
of controlled substance listed above is granted.

    Dated: February 4, 2000.
John H. King,
Deputy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-3142 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
#### GARZA v. SHERMAN et al.

No. 8865.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

June 29, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 1, 1932.

J. D. Todd and J. D. Todd, Jr., both of Corpus Christi, for plaintiff in error.

John C. North and R. B. King, both of Corpus Christi, for defendants in error.

SMITH, J.

This action was brought by Ben Garza against H. G. Sherman and Ella Smith to recover the amount of payments made by Garza in settlement of certain promissory notes executed by Ella Smith as principal and Garza as surety, and payable to Corpus Christi banks. Garza sought to recover of Sherman upon allegations that he indorsed the Smith notes at Sherman’s request, and upon the latter’s representation that he would see that Garza would “not lose by it.” The case was tried before the court, without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of Garza against Ella Smith, but against Garza in favor of Sherman. Garza has appealed.

The trial court filed no findings of fact or conclusions of law, as none were requested. The appeal is predicated upon the single proposition that the judgment is not supported by, ■but is contrary to, the preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff in error does not contend that there was no material evidence to support defendant in error’s defenses, or to refute plaintiff in error’s allegations. His contention is, simply, that the trial judge did not properly weigh the testimony of the witnesses, or correctly appraise their credibility. He contends, in short, that the trial judge should have believed plaintiff in error’s witnesses, and disbelieved defendant in error's witnesses; their testimony being concededly in direct conflict upon the material facts of the case.

 It is not within the prerogative of this court to determine fact issues which the tri^l court has clearly resolved out of a conflict of testimony. There is evidence in the record to support every finding essential to sustain the judgment appealed from, and the presumption is that the trial judge made every such finding, which has all the force and effect of specific jury findings.

This court has no other recourse than to affirm the judgment, and it is so ordered.
Exhibit 10.28(ii)
  
 Re:
    
    Amendment to Offer Letter Agreement re: Housing Assistance
  Onyx Company Amendment Effective
Date
   (1) Housing Assistance Payments. Housing Assistance Payments Change in Control
Agreement
 (2) Housing Stock Award. Housing Stock Award Closing Date




---



##### 



(3) Amendment of Stock Bonus Award. Stock Bonus




---



##### 



Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
 /s/ N. Anthony ColesN. Anthony Coles, M.D.President and Chief Executive Officer Understood and Accepted:
 /s/ Juergen LasowskiJuergen Lasowski, Ph.D.
Port Everglades Energy Center - Biological Assessment

Flajole, Andy to: Andrew Parks 08/31/2012 05:19 PM

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Hi Andrew,

FPL is pleased to provide to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IV the attached Biological

Assessment (BA) in support of the Port Everglades Energy Center (PEEC) project’s application for a

greenhouse gas (GHG) permit.  FPL is also sending a hard copy of the BA to your attention for delivery

Tuesday.  Per my voicemail, FPL would appreciate EPA submitting the BA to Audra Livergood with the

National Marine Fisheries Service at your earliest convenience (copying me on the submittal please).  

FPL looks forward to continuing to work with EPA on the GHG permit for PEEC.  Please call me if you

have any questions, and have a great holiday weekend.

Thank You,

Andy Flajole

Environmental Services

(561) 691‐2766

PEEC_Biological PEEC_Biological Assessment_2012_Rev. Assessment_2012_Rev. 0.pdf
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FRANCISCO MIGUEL ANGEL

NAJERA-GORDILLO, a.k.a. Miguel

Angel Gonzalez,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10006

D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00383-EJG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Edward J. Garcia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Francisco Miguel Angel Najera-Gordillo appeals from the 324-month

sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute

FILED

MAR 05 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-10006

and to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 846 and 841(a)(1), and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Najera-Gordillo contends that the sentence imposed is substantively

unreasonable. The record reflects that the district court considered NajeraGordillo’s arguments in mitigation and provided a well-reasoned analysis of the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, before concluding that a sentence at the

bottom of the Guidelines range was appropriate. The sentence is substantively

reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and in light of the section

3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.
1The HONORABLE CAROL E. JACKSON, United States

District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3338

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

Jocelyn "Nina" Spinali, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 22, 1997

 Filed: June 19, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1993, Jocelyn Spinali pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and one count

of making a false statement to obtain a loan from the Department of Housing and Urban

Development, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1010, and 2. The district court1

sentenced her to twenty four months in prison followed by two years of supervised

release. Spinali began her supervised release on March 22, 1995. In July 1996, the

court found that Spinali had violated three supervised release conditions, revoked 
-2-

supervised release, and sentenced Spinali to six months in prison and fourteen months

of additional supervised release. Spinali appeals. We affirm.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in revoking Spinali’s supervised release. The government’s

evidence at the revocation hearing was sufficient to establish that Spinali had violated

release conditions by submitting false credit applications, by falling substantially in

arrears on her child support obligations, and by failing to timely advise the probation

office of changes in her employment.

As to the revocation sentence, a six-month prison term is within the maximum

authorized for the “Grade B” supervised release violations Spinali committed, see

U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a)(2), 7B1.4, and fourteen months of additional supervised release

is within the maximum authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), as construed in a long

line of Eighth Circuit cases such as United States v. St. John, 92 F.3d 761, 766-67 (8th

Cir. 1996) (revocation sentence may include both imprisonment and additional

supervised release, but the aggregate may not exceed defendant’s original term of

supervised release).

We have carefully considered Spinali's remaining contentions on appeal and

conclude they are without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned executive officer of ESB Financial Corporation (the
Registrant) hereby certifies that the Registrants Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By: /s/ Charles P. EvanoskiCharles P. EvanoskiGroup Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer


Date: March 11, 2011

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ESB
Financial Corporation and will be retained by ESB Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 21.1


                       ROSS SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES


           Subsidiary                                 Place of incorporation
           ------------                               ----------------------

       1.  Cardinal Data Corporation                  Massachusetts, USA
       2.  Ross Systems (U.K.) Ltd.                   United Kingdom
       3.  RossData Canada Limited                    Canada
       4.  Ross Computer Software B.V.                The Netherlands
       5.  Ross Systems Nederland B.V.                The Netherlands
       6.  Ross Systems France S.A.                   France
       7.  Ross Systems Europe N.V.                   Belgium
       8.  Pioneer Software, Inc.                     California, USA
       9.  Ross Systems Deutschland GmbH              Germany
      10.  Ross Systems Iberica                       Spain
      11.  Bizware Corporation                        New Jersey, USA
      12.  Ross Software International PTE, Ltd.      Singapore
      13.  Ross Software International (HK), Ltd.     Hong Kong
      14.  Ross Systems Canadian Holdings, Inc.       Delaware
      15.  Hi Point Systems Corporation               Ontario, Canada
      16.  Resynt, Inc.                               Delaware, USA
      17.  Ross Systems Auckland, Limited             Auckland, New Zealand
Exhibit (4)(m)



 Exhibit 4(m) 
 Form of Policy Endorsement (Fund Facilitation Fee) 








			
	WESTERN RESERVE LIFE	  	Administrative Office:
	ASSURANCE CO. OF OHIO	  	4333 Edgewood Road N.E.
	(A STOCK COMPANY)	  	Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499
	Home Office: Columbus, Ohio	  	(800) 851-9777

 AMENDATORY ENDORSEMENT 
 The policy to which this Amendatory Endorsement is attached is amended to include the addition of the following Subaccounts: 
  

				
	 	  	Fund Facilitation Fee	 
	 AllianceBernstein VPS Balanced Wealth Strategy Portfolio
	  	0.20	%
	 Franklin Templeton VIP Founding Funds Allocation Fund
	  	0.15	%

 If any of the above Subaccounts are elected, a Fund Facilitation Fee would be charged in addition to any policy
fees and charges, and will be used in the calculation of net investment factor as described in the Accumulation Units and Variable Annuity Units provisions of the policy. The Fund Facilitation Fee will only be charged when money is allocated to one
of the above Subaccounts and is guaranteed not to change during the life of the policy. The Fund Facilitation Fee is an annualized percentage taken from the daily net asset values of a fund share held in that Subaccount. 
 This endorsement takes effect and expires concurrently with the policy to which it is attached and is subject to all the terms and conditions of the policy not
inconsistent herewith. 
 Signed for us at our home office. 
  

					
	

	 		 	


	SECRETARY	 		 	PRESIDENT

 AE 1288 0608
Novoste Corporation                                               Exhibit 10.24

August 11, 1999

Dr. Raoul Bonan
9451 Cote St-Louis
Mirabel
Quebec, Canada J0N 1S0

Dear Raoul:

      You have indicated to me that you desire to return to Montreal to engage
in the practice of medicine but desire to continue to serve us on a part-time
basis. We are thrilled that you will be able to continue to make such a
commitment to us. This letter is intended to set forth our mutual agreement as
to your continued employment.

      You will become a part-time employee, commencing September 1, 1999 for a
one-year term. Your title will continue to be Vice President of Clinical Affairs
& Medical Officer, and you will report directly to the President. You will have
no direct reports. You will work on our behalf one week per month. Your
responsibilities will be defined by the President and include but not be limited
to serving as Chairman of the Quality Review Board. Further, we agree that you
may perform your responsibilities at our facilities or at any other place
considered mutually appropriate by us. Your work may require travel.

      We will pay you $70,000, plus expenses, for the services rendered by you
during the term, payable in accordance with our normal bi-weekly payroll
periods, or $2,692.31 per pay period, less applicable withholdings and
deductions. You will not be eligible to participate either in the 1999 or 2000
Company Bonus Incentive Plan, and as a part-time employee you are not eligible
for insurance or pension benefits.

      Obviously, your continued employment at Novoste, even on a part-time
basis, is subject to your receipt of proper work authorization from the
Immigration and Naturalization Service and your continuing to be in good
standing in your profession. Novoste will continue to assist you with the
renewal of your temporary visa (TN visa) as long as appropriate for employment
at Novoste. Part-time employment status will preclude your receiving permanent
work authorization in this country (green card).


                                       28
<PAGE>

Dr. Raoul Bonan                     August 11, 1999                     Page Two

      The terms of your employment agreement dated April 17, 1998, except as
modified by this agreement, and the following agreements you have with us will
continue in full force and effect.

o     Confidentiality and Arbitration Agreement
o     Unfair Competition and Non-Solicitation Agreement
o     Patent Agreement (as modified by Section 4 of your April 17, 1999
      employment agreement, which provision will survive termination of that
      employment agreement)
o     Conflict of Interest Agreement
o     Business Conduct Agreement.

      We are proud of our association with you as a representative of Novoste
Corporation and look forward to a continued mutually beneficial relationship.

Best regards,

William A. Hawkins
President & CEO

Accepted:

-------------------------                          --------------------
Dr. Raoul Bonan


                                       29
11/17/2011 10: 15 FAX 2024935112 FAA - OMS 2)001/00 2 

UNITE D 

Jonathan T. Linde 

Managing Direcior, Sernor Counsel Regijlalory 

312/997-83-11 

Jonartian.Lindeeunned.com 

VIA FKDERAL EXPRESS 

Hearing Dockol 

Federal Aviation Adminisiiaiion 

800 Independence /Vvenue, SW 

Washingioti, LX' 20591 

AUeniion: Hcrtrin^DocketClcik AGC-';30 

Wilbur Wrighr Bujkling - Room 2014 

Re: FAA Case No. 2010SW27(M)66 

To rhe Heanne Docket Cicrk; 

OEfV\RTM[m" OF 

ihANSPORTATiON 

• :CK L i CFERATIGMS 

ZO!! i\OV n A MM 1 

RECEIVED 

NOV - 6 20H 

HEARING DOCKET 

P'yflA- Po//-/-7'7jb 

Pui-suant to 14 CFR 13.215, Coniinenra! Airlines, Inc. ('Coniintntitl") hereby withdraws its 

request for .1 hearing in ihe above-referenced c;i.sf. Settlement ha.s been redched with ihe Federal 

Aviatinn Administration ("FA.A") on an order ihai Coruinental has agreed noi. lO appeal, and the 

F A A will not fik-. (t complaint againsi Continentjl in this mjiiier. Thi.'^ settlemeni doc^ not 

i:tinsii(ute or imply adinissiun by Continental th:i[ i[ conuTiiticd the violmic.ms alleged by the FAA 

in this cas.c or agrees vviih the facis iilleyed by tht: FAA. 

Diited: Novemher 7. 2011 

Respecifuliy submitted. 

UNITEDAIR LINTES. INC. 

Jonathan T. T.inde 

Managing OirecLor. Senior Counsel Regulatoiy 

Regulatory. Alliances and Intemaiioiial 

Uniio.d Air Lines, Inc. 

77 West WacktT Drive, I6'^' FInnr HDQLD 

Chicago. Illinoi?; 60601 

T/P; (3l2)yy7-K.'^4l 

F.-mdil: lonaihan.lindeCa'uniicd.coi-n 

Certificate of Service attached 

Copy lo; Tim Duff, Esq. 

Federal Aviation .A d mm i strati on 

Office of Regionai Coun.sel, Southwesr Region 

2601 Meacham Boulevard 

Fort W.n-ih. Texa.-^ 76l9?-0(X>7 

Via Federal Expn.:^^ iuid Facsimile (817) 222-5945/5092 

Vhe Un'uftd BuiWint^—HOOLA. 7" WestWackef Owe, Chicago iL Soe-M A. STAR ALLIANCE MEMBEPl \ * 
U/17/201 1 10:1 5 FAX 202493514 2 

FAA - DMS ©002/002 

CF.RTlFfCATH OF .SERVICE 

1 hereby certify that the attached document \va>. delivered overnight by Federal F.xpres.t and .sent 

by facsimile to the following attorney of record for the Federal Aviation Administration on 

November 7. 2011; 

Tim Duff, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Coiinsek Southwest Region 

2601 Me;icham Boulevard 

Fon Wonh, Texas 76193-0007 

Vid Federal Expic.^s and Facsimile (817"t 222-5'M.S/:^092 

Dated: November 7. 2011 

U Jonathan T. T.,inde 

1 he Unitea BuiMing- HDOL-^. 77 Wesi Wcickei Dtive, Chicagc, IL 6060"i