alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Louis H. Riedell, Respondent, *v.*S. Karpen & Bros., Appellant; Laboratory Furniture Co., Inc., Respondent; et al., Impleaded Defendants.

Argued December 2, 1943;

decided January 13, 1944.

*803
      *William C. Morris*and *Edward M. Fuller*for appellant.

*Charles Margett*and *Benjamin H. Siff*for plaintiff-respondent.

*Joseph Kane*and *George J. Stacy*for defendant-respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacher, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6919 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6919

  To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Tomah, 
  Wisconsin, as the ``Jason Simcakoski Department of Veterans Affairs 
                           Medical Center''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2024

Mr. Van Orden (for himself, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Steil, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. 
    Grothman, Mr. Gallagher, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, and Mr. Pocan) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To name the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in Tomah, 
  Wisconsin, as the ``Jason Simcakoski Department of Veterans Affairs 
                           Medical Center''.

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

SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, 
              TOMAH, WISCONSIN.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs medical center located at 500 
East Veterans Street, Tomah, Wisconsin, shall after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, be known and designated as the ``Jason 
Simcakoski Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center''. Any 
reference to such medical center in any law, regulation, map, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States shall be considered to be a 
reference to the Jason Simcakoski Department of Veterans Affairs 
Medical Center.
                                 <all>
```
#### Julius A. Schulman, Appellant, *v.*The City of New York, Respondent.

Argued May 25, 1943;

decided July 20, 1943.

*523
      *George L. Allin*and *Arad Biggs*for appellant.

*Bobert II. Schaffer, Acting Corporation Counsel (Alfred D. Jahr, Julius Isaacs*and *Leo Brown*of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Thacher, J.
Jarell Tramonze BLACKMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1596

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
[Civ. No. 2932.

First Appellate District, Division One.

November 3, 1919.]

#### GREAT WESTERN LUMBER COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA CANNERIES COMPANY (a Corporation), Respondent.

[1] Pleading — Contracts — Condition Precedent. — Judgment affirmed on the authority of *California Canneries*Co. v. *Great Western Lumber Co., ante,*p. 69.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. E. P. Shortall, Judge.

Affirmed.

The issues involved in this appeal are identical with those in *California Canneries Co.*v. *Great Western Lumber Co., ante,*p. 69, [185 Pac. 1008].

Marcel E. Cerf and C. H. Sooy for Appellant.

John R. Jones for Respondent.

WASTE, P. J.

[1] The issues involved in this appeal are identical with those in *California Canneries Co.*v. *Great Western Lumber Co., ante,*p. 69, [185 Pac. 1008], By stipulation of the parties the result of that action was embodied in findings and judgment in this cause without a separate trial. The records were presented here in one transcript on appeal.

On the authority of the decision in that case the judgment is affirmed.

Richards, J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the district court of appeal on December 2, 1919, and the following opinion then rendered thereon:

*791THE COURT.

The reasons given in denying the petition for a rehearing in *California Canneries Co.*v. *Great Western Lumber Co., ante,*p. 69, [185 Pac. 1008], apply to this, the companion case.

A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on January 2, 1920.

All the Justices concurred.
Exhibit 10.1


EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT RENEWAL AND AMENDMENT




THIS AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into on May 21, 2012 by and between Lightwave Logic, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (the “Company”), located at 111 Ruthar Dr., Newark, Delaware19711; and James S. Marcelli (“Employee”).  




1.

This Agreement renews and amends that certain Employee Agreement dated August 1, 2008, as amended on July 9, 2009, June 18, 2010, and May 2, 2012 made and entered into by the parties hereto (the “Employee Agreement”). Capitalized terms herein have the same meaning as used in the Employee Agreement, unless otherwise noted.




2.

Effective May 21, 2012, Appendix A of the Employee Agreement entitled “Duties of Employee” is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




Employee, as the Company’s President and Chief Operating Officer, subject to the control of the Chief Executive Officer and the Board of Directors, shall be responsible for:




A.

The overall administration and business operations of the Company, including internal operations, laboratory functions, administrative responsibilities, and working with the Chief Executive Officer to provide support and guidance to the Board of Directors and committees thereof.




B.

Financial management of the Company, including serving as the Company’s principal financial officer and treasurer equivalent, ensuring the long-term financial health of the Company, overseeing the Company’s accounting and audits, caring for the Company’s funds, and such other duties that are essentially equivalent to those of a principal financial officer and treasurer. 




C.

Such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by the Chief Executive Officer and the Board of Directors that is reasonably agreed upon by Employee. 




3.

All other provisions of the Employee Agreement remain in full force and effect, other than any provision that conflicts with the terms and spirit of this Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date first written above.




			
	 
	 
	LIGHTWAVE LOGIC, INC.:


	 
	 
	 

	/s/Faith Dillard

	 
	By: /s/Thomas E. Zelibor


	(Witness Signature)

	 
	Thomas E. Zelibor, CEO


	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	EMPLOYEE:


	 
	 
	 

	/s/Faith Dillard

	 
	/s/James S. Marcelli


	(Witness Signature)

	 
	James S. Marcelli
Exhibit 32.2

Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that,
to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) | information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    LEO M.
CHUPASKALeo M. Chupaska
Chief Financial Officer,
Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority
August 13, 2010


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Authority and will be retained by the
Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Emeline Gallup, Resp’t, v. James Henderson *et al.,*App’lts.

*Brewster Kissam,*for resp’t; *E. Countryman*and *S. Jones,*for

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Affirming 25 N. Y. State Rep., 506.
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.7

                                RIGHTS AGREEMENT
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 4

         THIS AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT is entered into as of May 9,
2002 by Aspen Technology, Inc. (the "Company") and American Stock Transfer and
Trust Company, as Rights Agent (the "Rights Agent"), with respect to the Rights
Agreement dated as of March 12, 1998 between the Company and the Rights
Agreement, as amended to date (the "Rights Agreement").

         WHEREAS, no Distribution Date, as defined in Section 3(b) of the Rights
Agreement, has occurred; and

         WHEREAS, the Company has directed the Rights Agent to enter into this
Amendment No. 4 pursuant to Section 26 of the Rights Agreement;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual agreements
set forth herein, the Company and the Rights Agent agree as follows:

         The definition of "Exempt Person" set forth in Section 1 of the Rights
Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in
lieu thereof:

         "'Exempt Person'" shall mean Pine Ridge Financial Inc., Perseverance
LLC and Smithfield Fiduciary LLC (each an "Investor"), unless and until such
time as such Investor directly or indirectly becomes the Beneficial Owner of
Common Shares other than Common Shares received (i) as a dividend on, or as a
result of any conversion or redemption of, any shares of the Series B-I
Convertible Preferred Stock, $.10 par value per share, or Series B-II
Convertible Preferred Stock, $.10 par value per share, of the Company, (ii) upon
exercise of warrants issued by the Company pursuant to the Amended and Restated
Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 19, 2002, between the Company
and the Investors (the "March Purchase Agreement"), (iii) pursuant to the
Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 9, 2002, between the Company and
the persons and entities (including certain Investors and their affiliates)
listed on Schedule A thereto (the "May Purchase Agreement"), including Common
Shares received upon exercise of warrants issued thereunder, or (iv) otherwise
pursuant to the March Purchase Agreement, the Amended and Restated Registration
Rights Agreement, dated as of March 19, 2002, between the Company and the
Investors, or the May Purchase Agreement. In addition, `Exempt Person' shall
include any Person to whom or which an Investor transfers any shares of such
Series B-I Convertible Preferred Stock, such Series B-II Convertible Stock or
any such warrants."

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment No. 4
as of the date first written above.


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY, INC.                     AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER AND TRUST
                                           COMPANY, AS RIGHTS AGENT


By: /s/ Mary A. Palermo                    By: /s/ Herbert L. Lemmer
    ---------------------------------          ---------------------------------
    Mary A. Palermo                            Name: Herbert L. Lemmer
    Chief Operating Officer                    Title:  Vice President
Exhibit 99.3



The following certification accompanies the Authoritys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and is not filed
as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8212, 34-47551 and IC-25967, dated March 21, 2003.



Written Statement of President and Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (the Authority), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, on the date hereof:



| | (a) |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Authority for the Quarter and Six Months Ended March 31, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (b) |  | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Authority.
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    WILLIAM J. VELARDOWilliam J.
Velardo President and Chief Executive Officer May 14, 2003




A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Authority and will be retained by the Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
1

Sutton, Tia

From: Timothy.Mullins@dot.gov

Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 7:02 PM

To: Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov; Chad_A._Lallemand@omb.eop.gov

Cc: james.tamm@dot.gov; Sutton, Tia; Hengst, Benjamin; Spears, Matthew

Subject: FW: Summary of interagency comments received under EO 12866 and EO 13563 review 

of draft NPRM

Attachments: NHTSA EPA Response to OMB Comments on Rebound 150617 1830.docx

Good evening, 

Attached please find our responses to your June 17, 2015 written interagency comments on Preamble Section IX 

Rebound. 

Thanks, 

Tim 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Achanta, Chandana L. [mailto:Chandana_L._Achanta@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:46 PM 

To: Timothy.Mullins@dot.gov; Spears, Matthew; Hengst, Benjamin 

Cc: Whiteman, Chad 

Subject: Summary of interagency comments received under EO 12866 and EO 13563 review of draft NPRM 

Hi All 

As a follow-up, please find attached a summary document of interagency working comments received on the draft 

NPRM under EO 12866 and EO 13563 review. 

Thanks 

Chandana
Order entered June 12, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00852-CR

LEROY SHERARD JACKSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-34319-T

ORDER

 In this case, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The 

record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs 

assessed in this case.

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization 

of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court 

appointed attorney fees. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a 

document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court 

appointed attorney fee.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### Albert H. Pickard, Pres’t, App’lt, v. John Simson, Resp’t.

*S. E. Graves,*for app’lt; *Geo. Wing,*for resp’t.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon opinion of general term. All concur.
Order entered December 20, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01221-CV

SHUMONE BURNETT AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellant

V.

DIRECT ACCESS CAPITAL HOLDINGS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-04771-E

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case has not been filed. By letter dated December 6, 2018, 

we informed appellant the court reporter notified us that the reporter’s record had not been filed 

because appellant had not (1) requested the record; or (2) paid for or made arrangements to pay 

for the record. We directed appellant to provide the Court with written verification showing the 

reporter’s record had been requested and that appellant had paid for or made arrangements to pay 

for the record or had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned 

appellant that failure to provide the required documentation within ten days might result in the 

appeal being ordered submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, appellant has not 

provided the required documentation nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the 
status of the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a 

reporter’s record. 

Appellant’s brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Alma Rosa NAVARRETE-PRADO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73180

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 19, 2017

Thomas Damien Pamilla,. Attorney, Law Offices of Thomas D. Pamilla, APC, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner

David H. Wetmore, Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alma Rosa Navarrete-Prado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen exclusion proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of á motion to reopen. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Navarrete-Prado’s motion as untimely, where the motion was filed more than 15 years after the applicable regulatory deadline of September 30,1996, and she did not establish any grounds for equitable tolling of the filing deadline. *See 8*C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (“A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, or on or before September 30, 1996, whichever is later.”); *Socop-Gonzalez v. INS,*272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir. 2001) (equitable tolling is applied in cases where despite all due diligence, the party invoking equitable tolling is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of the claim (citation omitted)). In addition, Navarrete-Prado has not established grounds for equitable estoppel based on alleged IJ misconduct. *See Socop-Gonzalez,*272 F.3d at 1184 (equitable estoppel requires a showing of affirmative misconduct — a “deliberate lie” or “pattern of false promises” — by a government actor).

Navarrete-Prado’s contention that the agency erred in denying sua sponte reopening for failure to demonstrate excep*451tional circumstances does not raise a legal or constitutional error to invoke our jurisdiction. *See Bonilla v. Lynch,*840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).

In light of these determinations, we do not reach Navarrete-Prado’s remaining contentions regarding her underlying 1993 exclusion proceedings and her eligibility for adjustment of status.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### HEARNE v. PRENDERGAST et al.

Appeal from Robertson county.

*Appeal*— Affidavit—Proof.—Our statutes provides that when an appellant is unable to pay the costs of an appeal, or give security therefor, that he may be allowed to prosecute the appeal by making proof of his inability to pay the costs, or any part thereof. This proof is to be 'made before the county judge of the county where such party resides, or before the court trying the case, and is to consist of the affidavit of the party making it, stating his inability to pay the costs. (Revised Statutes, article 1401.) They do not in positive terms require that the affidavit shall be made and sworn to before the county judge of the court trying the cause, but it was held by this court in Wooldridge vs. Roller, 52 Texas, 452, that where the affidavit was made before any other officer, the county judge must certify that the fact required to be verified by the affidavit had been proved before Mm. It was further held that the affi • *123davit and the certificate of the county judge must be filed with the clerk of the court in which the case is tried in time to perfect the appeal. Of course, if the proof is made before the court trying the cause, and not the county judge, there must be some evidence in the record that the facts required to be shown by the affidavit had been established before the court. In the present case there is in the record an affidavit in proper form, sworn to by appellant before a notary public, but it is not certified to by a county judge, nor could it have been made in the court trying the cause, as that court had adjourned for the term several days before the date of the affidavit. How this paper found its way into the files of the court is not disclosed by the record. A statute so particular in its requirements as to the mode of perfecting the appeal cannot be satisfied by a, mere affidavit taken before a notary and not passed upon in any manner by the officers to whom the law commits the trust of hearing and determining the proof upon which the appeal is to be allowed. It grants the privilege of litigating in this court without securing the officers of the court payment for ih'eir services rendered in the cause, a privilege to be enjoyed under certain circumstances, and in a manner expressly provided by the statute, and its provisions in these respects must be substantially pursued. They have not been complied with in this case and the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion by

Willie, C. J.