alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
454 A.2d 165

#### Commonwealth v. Kidd, Appellant.

Submitted January 14, 1981.

John J. Morgan, for appellant; Robert F. Hawk, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, P.J., SPAETH and MONTGOMERY, JJ.

The judgment of sentence of the lower court is affirmed.

SPAETH, J. filed a memorandum concurring statement.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof Capital Corp of the West (“the Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endingSeptember 30, 2003 as filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (“the Report”), I, Thomas T. Hawker , President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| November 12, 2003 |                                     |
|------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|                   |                                     |
|                   | /s/ R. Dale McKinney                     |   |
|                   | R. Dale McKinneyChief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### John BLANTON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. J. T. CURTIS, Dallas Police Officer Individually; Matthew Smith, Dallas Police Officer Individually; Richard Martinez, Dallas Police Officer Individually; Kelly White, Dallas Police Officer Individually; Jose Guzman, Dallas Police Officer Individually; Several Unknown Dallas Police Officers, Individually; Various Unknown Federal Law Enforcement Officers, Whose Identities and Agencies are Unknown; Individually, Defendants-Appellees

No. 17-10225 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 11, 2017

John Davidson Nation, Nation Law Firm, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Barbara Elaine Rosenberg, Esq., Jennifer Carter Huggard, Jason G. Schuette, Esq., Senior Litigation Attorney, City Attorney’s Office for the City of Dallas, Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellees

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by the *361judge’s order dated October 27, 2016. The defendants have given evidence to justify the damage done to the house and warrant their legal defense in exercise of qualified immunity. The plaintiff argues that as non-movant, he should be favored by material conflicts of the evidence. However, there is no disputed issue of fact in this case. The judgment is correct.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *361published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Irene Root, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of William K. Root, Deceased, Respondent, v John M. Hogan, Jr., et al., Appellants.

[770 NYS2d 900]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Ferradino, J.), entered November 12, 2002 in Saratoga County, which granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment.

Decedent, allegedly the victim of medical malpractice in 1990, retained defendant attorneys to file suit against the hospital and treating physician. The resultant medical malpractice action filed by defendants was dismissed in 1993 because of their failure to timely serve a complaint and purchase an index number. There is record evidence that defendants concealed this dismissal from decedent until he uncovered the true state of affairs after a search of public court records. Thereafter, the instant legal malpractice action was commenced.

This appeal is from an order granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. On the motion, plaintiff submitted supporting affirmations from a duly licensed physician who opined, based upon his review of decedent’s medical records, that decedent’s care deviated from acceptable medical practice. Significantly, the sole opposition to this application came in the form of an attorney affirmation.

To prevail on her application, plaintiff had to make a prima facie showing that defendants failed to exercise the degree of skill commonly possessed by members of the legal profession which proximately resulted in damages *(see Arnav Indus., Inc.*
      *810
      *Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Millstein, Felder & Steiner,*96 NY2d 300, 303-304 [2001]). With defendants’ deviation from the proper standard of care patent, the sole remaining issue is the merits of the underlying medical malpractice action *(see Tanel v Kreitzer & Vogelman,*293 AD2d 420, 421 [2002]). On this point, defendants’ attorney affirmation was clearly insufficient to rebut the opinion of plaintiff’s medical expert *(see*Siegel, NY Prac § 281, at 442 [3d ed]). Accordingly, the motion was properly granted.

To the extent not herein discussed, defendants’ remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lauro GONZALEZ-DOMINGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40008 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Lauro Gonzalez-Dominguez, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lauro Gonzalez-Dominguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Gonzalez-Dominguez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Terry Lee NEVILLS, Sr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-307

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Petitioner, v. Jerome JONES and State of Florida, Respondents.

Case No. 5D18-2126

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed July 12, 2018

Joyce L. Miller, of Department of Children & Families, Tavares, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent, State of Florida.

No Appearance for other Respondent.

ON PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

PER CURIAM.

*1307Based on the State's proper concession of error, we grant the Department of Children and Families' petition for writ of certiorari and remand this case for further proceedings under section 916.17, Florida Statutes (2018). The lower court shall release Mr. Jones from custody of the department or conduct a hearing pursuant to section 916.17(2) within seven days from the date of this opinion.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, TORPY and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATI 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Venice Jet Center, LLC 

Complainant, 

V. 

City of Venice, Florida 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No 

/ 

NOTICE OF LAW FIRM CHANGE 

Cc unsel of record for Complainant Venice Jet Center, LLC provides this notice of law 

firm change. The new firm name and address are as follows: 

WL\ND GUERRA KING P.L. 

3000 Bayport Drive, Suite 600 

'.: ^ Tampa, PL 33607'", 

Tel: 813-347-5100' 

Fax:813-347-5155 

PLjase direct all notices, orders, pleadings, and other documents to Defendant's counsel 

• • ^ • •'•••'•'•''';;' • ••'•' * w'. I /.'•.* ' • 

accordingly. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I lereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on the 

following persons by overnight mail on November 17, 2009: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn: FAvV Part 16 Airport Proceedings 

Docket,/.GC-610 

Room 92:5 

Federal A viation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Original ind 3 copies by overnight 

delivery 

Jonathan Cross 

Manager 

Airports and Environmental Law division 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Facsimile (202) 267-5769 

ICopy 

•• ;' ( C>'-'< 
I hereby further certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on the 

following persons by electronic mail on November 17,2009: 

Elizabeth Head 

Senior Attorney 

Airports & Environmental Law Division 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Email: Elizabeth.Head@faa.gov 

I liereby further certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on the 

following persons by overnight mail and electronic mail on November 17, 2009: 

Thomas R. Devine 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP 

1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste. 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: (202) 955-5600 

Email: tdevine@,kaplankirsch.com 

I hereby further certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on the 

following persons by United States mail on November 17,2009: 

Robert C. Anderson 

Hall & Anderson, P.A 

1314 East Venice Avenue, Suite E** 

Venice, Florida 34285 

&ctkU\^^ ^ 

•Xjianluca Mor^J/o, FBN 034997 

Gm|6rello@ wiandlaw. com 

5minique Pearlman, FBN 004413 5 

Dpearlman@wiandlaw.com 

WIAND GUERRA KING P.L. 

3000 Bayport Drive, Suite 600 

Tampa, FL 33607 

Attorneys for the Complainant, Venice Jet 

Center, LLC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0453 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRIAN ROBERT BENEDICT ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 5 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 27 2023

03/27/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0453
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26274]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0760; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-10-AD; 
Amendment 39-16789; AD 2011-18-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; WYTWORNIA SPRZETU KOMUNIKACYJNEGO (WSK) 
``PZL-RZESZOW''--SPOLKA AKCYJNA (SA) PZL-10W Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that 
published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to the products 
listed above. The effective date in paragraph (a) of the Amended 
section of the AD is incorrect. This document corrects that error. In 
all other respects, the original document remains the same.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 17, 2011. The effective 
date of AD 2011-18-07 remains October 4, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, 
any comments received, and other information. The address for the 
Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, 
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, 
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail: 
james.lawrence@faa.gov; phone: 781-238-7176; fax: 781-238-7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Airworthiness Directive 2011-18-07, 
Amendment 39-16789 (76 FR 57900, September 19, 2011), currently 
requires a one time inspection of spline teeth on the fuel metering 
pump shaft for excessive wear, for WSK PZL-10W series turboshaft 
engines.
    As published, paragraph (a) of the Amended section is incorrect.
    No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been 
changed; therefore, only the changed portion of the final rule is being 
published in the Federal Register.
    The effective date of this AD remains October 4, 2011.

Correction of Regulatory Text

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
In the Federal Register of September 19, 2011, on page 57901, in the 
third column, paragraph (a) of AD 2011-18-07 is corrected to read as 
follows:

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October 
4, 2011.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 4, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification 
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-26274 Filed 10-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
<PAGE>



EXHIBIT 99.32



Contact:      Jerry B. Hook, Ph.D.                Ronald H. Spair

              Chairman, President & CEO           Senior Vice President & CFO

              Sparta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.        Sparta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

              (215) 442-1700, Ext. 205            (215) 442-1700, Ext. 207



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



                Sparta Returns to Original Nasdaq Trading Symbols



Horsham, PA, June 11, 1998, Sparta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPTA, SPTAU,
SPTAW, SPTAZ and SPTAL) announced today that the Nasdaq trading symbols for the
Company have returned to their original SPTA, SPTAU, SPTAW, SPTAZ and SPTAL.
Three temporary symbols (SPTAD, SPTLD and SPTUD) were in effect for 20 business
days in response to a reverse stock split which occurred on May 13, 1998.



Sparta is a development stage pharmaceutical company engaged in the business of
acquiring rights to, and developing for commercialization, technologies and
drugs for the treatment of a number of life threatening diseases including
cancer, cardiovascular disorders, chronic metabolic diseases and inflammation.
The Company has focused on acquiring compounds that have been previously tested
in humans and animals and technologies that may improve the delivery or
effectiveness of previously tested, and in some cases marketed, drugs. Sparta's
portfolio of compounds in development includes four potential oncology products
and one for the treatment of Type II diabetes in clinical trials and an emerging
platform technology in recombinant and small molecule protease inhibitors.

                                      # # #
**Exhibit 24**
**POWER OF ATTORNEY**
     Each of the undersigned officers and/or directors of Too, Inc., a Delaware corporation(the “Company”), hereby appoints Michael W. Rayden and William E. May as his or her true and lawfulattorneys-in-fact, or either of them individually with power to act without the other, as his orher true and lawful attorney-in-fact, in his or her name and on his or her behalf, and in any andall capacities stated below, to sign and to cause to be filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2005, andany and all amendments thereto, hereby granting unto said attorneys, and to each of them, fullpower and authority to do and perform in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in any and allsuch capacities, every act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done in and about the premises asfully as each of the undersigned could or might do in person, hereby granting to each such attorneyfull power of substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying all that any such attorney or hissubstitute may do by virtue hereof.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Power of Attorney in counterpartsif necessary, effective as of April 12, 2005.       *Signature* *Title*      /s/ Michael W. Rayden Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and    Michael W. Rayden Chief Executive Officer      /s/ William E. May Executive Vice President and Chief Operating    William E. May Officer (Principal Financial Officer)      /s/ Elizabeth M. Eveillard Director    Elizabeth M. Eveillard        /s/ Nancy J. Kramer Director    Nancy J. Kramer        /s/ David A. Krinsky Director    David A. Krinsky        /s/ Philip E. Mallott Director    Philip E. Mallott        /s/ Fredric M. Roberts Director    Fredric M. Roberts        /s/ Kenneth J. Strottman Director    Kenneth J. Strottman
Amendment No. 2 to License Agreement



 Exhibit 10.4(C) 
 Execution Version 
 [***] Certain information in this document has been omitted and filed
separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Confidential treatment has been requested with respect to the omitted portions. 
 Amendment Number 2 to License Agreement 
 Regents of The University of
Michigan & 
 OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 
 Effective as of this 13 day of August, 2004, and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (successor to Cancer Stem Cell Genomics, Inc.) a corporation
incorporated in the State of Delaware, with offices located at Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2500, San Francisco, CA 94111 (“LICENSEE”), and the Regents of The University of Michigan, a constitutional corporation of the State of
Michigan (“MICHIGAN”), agree to and hereby do amend their License Agreement, dated January 5, 2001, as amended by Amendment Number 1 to License Agreement dated as of July 21, 2004 (hereinafter “Subject
License”) in accordance with the following terms and conditions: 
  

	1)	Defined Terms. Defined terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Subject License. 


 

	2)	Licensed Field. The term “Licensed Field,” as defined in Section 30.14 of the Subject License shall be replaced in its entirety with the following
provision: 

 “Licensed Field” means cancer stem cells (including their differentiation from normal
cells), pre-neoplastic cells, related transitional cells, and non-tumorgenic cancer cells, including but not limited to (1) identification, purification, and assays thereof; (2) identification, purification, and assays of markers and
agents, or molecules, that affect the function of cancer cells as compared to other cells; and (3) information and data related to gene expression, drug discovery, diagnostics and therapeutics related thereof. 

 

	3)	Payments. Upon the earlier to occur of August 31, 2004 or fifteen (15) days following the First Funding as defined in Section 7.5 of the Subject
License, as amended by Amendment Number 1 thereto, LICENSEE will pay MICHIGAN the remaining [***] due under Section 4.1 of the Subject License. LICENSEE shall owe MICHIGAN no further payments pursuant to such Section 4.1.


  

	4)	All other terms and provisions of the Subject License shall remain unaltered and in full effect. 


[REMAINDER OF PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized officers or
representatives. 
  

									
	ONCOMED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.	 		 	THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
					
	By	 	 /s/ Robert F. Gavin
	 		 	By	 	 /s/ Kenneth J. Nisbet

		 	(authorized representative)	 		 		 	(authorized representative)
					
	Typed Name	 	 Robert F. Gavin
	 		 	Typed Name	 	 Kenneth J. Nisbet

					
	Title	 	 President
	 		 	Title	 	 Executive Director, UM Technology Transfer

					
	Date	 	 8/13/04
	 		 	Date	 	 8/13/04



  
 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1054

ZARA ELLIS SADLER, PhD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

BARBARA CLAIRE TILLEY, PhD, 

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.

(2:05-cv-03234-DCN)

Submitted: March 29, 2006 Decided: April 11, 2006

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zara Ellis Sadler, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Zara Ellis Sadler appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on her complaint pursuant to Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17 (2000), and

denying her motion to amend her complaint. After a thorough review

of the record, we conclude that the district court should have

permitted Sadler to amend her complaint as a matter of right under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) because no responsive

pleading had been filed. Thus, even though Sadler sought leave to

amend, she actually did not need to do so. See Domino Sugar

Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1068 n.1 (4th

Cir. 1993); Smith v. Blackledge, 451 F.2d 1201, 1202-03 (4th Cir.

1971). We therefore vacate the district court’s order dismissing

Sadler’s action and denying Sadler’s motion to amend her complaint,

and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED