alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
================================================================================

                                  Exhibit 10.2

    Memorandum of Affiliation Between Clayton Timothy and Terra Systems Inc.


It is agreed between Terra Systems Inc. and Clayton Timothy that Mr. Timothy
shall affiliate with Terra Systems Inc. under the following conditions:

Base Pay shall be $120,000.00 per year. Payment to be made on the 1st and 15th
of each month at the rate of $5,000.00 per pay period.

The term of Affiliation shall be Minimum of three years.

All Holidays and Vacation shall be paid and taken at such a time that Mr.
Timothy's absence will not interfere with the business at hand of Terra Systems
Inc.

A monthly vehicle allowance of$500.00 shall be given to Mr. Timothy.

Office space will be provided for Mr. Timothy in the Corporate Offices in Salt
Lake City for the term of the agreement.

Should early termination of the Mr. Timothy's position occur for any reason, Mr.
Timothy shall receive full and usual benefits for up to 52 weeks. As Mr. Timothy
will be an officer and director of the company, base salary severance will be
protected by the by-laws of the public company.

TSYI shall cover the cost of COBRA for an interim until a benefits package is
fully in place as approved by the Board of Directors.

Should Mr. Timothy be required by the company to relocate from Price Utah, all
reasonable moving expenses including acquisition and disposition of Real Estate
shall be paid by the company.

 Agreed to for:

         Terra Systems Inc.                         Clayton Timothy


         /s/ George W. Ford Jr.                     /s/ Clayton Timothy
         -----------------------                    -----------------------
         President


         Date:  May 31, 2005                        Date: May 31, 2005



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Suzanne Mangold Zacharius, Appellant, v Kensington Publishing Corporation et al., Respondents.

[60 NYS3d 830]

*451Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 3, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for spoliation sanctions to the extent of directing plaintiff to pay the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by defendants in reviewing plaintiff’s Yahoo account and in preparing the motion, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Spoliation sanctions were providently granted. The record demonstrated that plaintiff was in control of her own email account; was aware, as an attorney, of her obligation to preserve it at the time it was destroyed, with or without service of defendants’ litigation hold notice upon her, since she commenced the action; and had a “culpable state of mind,” as she admitted that she intentionally deleted well over 3,000 emails during the pendency of the action *(see VOOM HD Holdings LLC v EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.,*93 AD3d 33 [1st Dept 2012]). Destroyed evidence is automatically presumed “relevant” to the spoliator’s claims when it is intentionally deleted *(VOOM,*93 AD3d at 45, citing *Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC,*220 FRD 212, 220 [SD NY 2003]). While plaintiff asserted that she only intentionally deleted irrelevant emails, her own emails evidenced intentional deletion of thousands of emails, and defendants recovered at least one email that was pertinent to the allegations in the complaint.

Under the circumstances, the court providently exercised its discretion in limiting the sanction against plaintiff to costs and attorneys’ fees, rather than the “drastic remedy” of striking plaintiff’s complaint *(see Melcher v Apollo Med. Fund Mgt. L.L.C.,*105 AD3d 15, 24 [1st Dept 2013]). While plaintiff’s actions were intentional, defendants were “not entirely bereft of evidence tending to establish [its] position” *(id.,*quoting *Cohen Bros. Realty v Rosenberg Elec. Contrs.,*265 AD2d 242, 244 [1999], *lv dismissed*95 NY2d 791 [2000]; *see Schantz v Fish,*79 AD3d 481 [1st Dept 2010]).

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Renwick, Webber, Oing and Moulton, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of Morgans Foods, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period
ended May 23, 2004, (the Report), which this certification
accompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.                                                                                       

Dated: July 7, 2004
    
    /s/
    
    Leonard R. Stein-SapirLeonard R. Stein-Sapir, Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer


18
Exhibit 31.2

**CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TO EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT OF 2002**

I, Joseph M. Ramos, Jr., certify that:

(1)            I  have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Siebert Financial Corp.;

(2)            Based  on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material  fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,  in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading  with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3)            Based  on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included  in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods  presented in this report;

(4)            The  registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing  and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act  Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

                 a.             Designed  such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls  and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material  information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the  period in which this report is being prepared;

                 b.             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and  procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness  of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered  by this report based on such evaluation; and

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

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

                 a.             All  significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation  of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to  adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize  and report financial information; and

                 b.             Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees  who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial  reporting.
#### Com. v. Dennis

12/16/2015

227 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 1130
#### Joan C. Jangarathis, Appellant, v James C. Jangarathis, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[767 NYS2d 902]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the *496plaintiff appeals (1), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.H.O.), dated October 9, 2002, as, in effect, denied that branch of her motion which was to adjourn the trial for six months and, in effect, granted the cross motion of the defendant James C. Jangarathis to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, and (2) from an order of the same court (LeVine, J.), dated March 4, 2003, which denied her motion to vacate the order dated October 9, 2002.

Ordered that the order dated October 9, 2002, is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a determination by a justice of that court of the merits of the motion and cross motion; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated March 4, 2003, is dismissed as academic, in light of our determination on the appeal from the order dated October 9, 2002; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The reference to Judicial Hearing Officer Leviss (hereinafter the J.H.O.) was to hear and report, not hear and determine. Accordingly, the J.H.O. had no authority to issue an order determining the motion and cross motion *(see*CPLR 4317, 4320). Smith, J.P., Krausman, McGinity and Rivera, JJ., concur.
2016-1683.

#### Mason v. Mason Professional Firefighters, IAFF Local 4049.

Warren App. No. CA2015-12-111, 2016-Ohio-7194.

Kennedy and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30144]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14685]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-228; RM-9163]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Pima, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel 296A to Pima, Arizona, as that 
community's first local aural transmission service, in response to a 
petition for rule making filed on behalf of R. A. Montierth 
Enterprises, L.L.C. See 62 FR 61721, November 19, 1997. Coordinates 
used for Channel 296A at Pima, Arizona, are 32-53-36 and 109-49-42. As 
Pima is located within 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the U.S.-Mexico 
border, the Commission obtained concurrence of the Mexican government 
to the requested allotment of Channel 296A at that community. With this 
action, the proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective July 6, 1998. A filing window for Channel 296A at 
Pima, Arizona, will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue of 
opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by the 
Commission in a separate Order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180. Questions related to the application filing process should be 
addressed to the Audio Services Division, (202) 418-2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 97-228, adopted May 13, 1998, and 
released May 22, 1998. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 reads as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arizona, is 
amended by adding Pima, Channel 296A.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-14685 Filed 6-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Douglas, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 870]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lopez, J.), rendered October 24, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was charged, inter alia, with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree based on allegations that he knowingly possessed a gun outside of his home or place of business. After a trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of this charge.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]; *People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by improper remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Rivera,*130 AD3d 655, 656 [2015]). In any event, the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, and constituted fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation or fair comment on the evidence *(see People v Halm,*81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; *People v Galloway,*54 NY2d 396, 399-401 [1981]; *People v Ashwal,*39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]).

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
#### Paul Viselli et al., Appellants, v The Riverbay Corporation, Respondent.

[63 NYS3d 240]—

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, J.), entered January 6, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*440Plaintiff firefighter, while responding with other firefighters to an apartment fire on the fifth floor in defendant’s residential apartment building, allegedly slipped, fell and was injured on an unknown “wet” substance upon the painted concrete stairs of an internal, common stairwell. Defendant established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for common law negligence, as well as under General Municipal Law § 205-a. Its deposition testimony, supporting affidavits, exhibits and expert opinion established, inter alia, that the alleged substance on which plaintiff slipped remained unidentified, its duration on the steps undetermined, and the cement stairs on which it rested had been painted with a specified non-skid paint that possessed a measured slip-resistance coefficient of between 0.550 and 0.625 *(Lopez-Ramos v New York City Hous. Auth.,*136 AD3d 504 [1st Dept 2016]; *Sims v 3349 Hull Ave. Realty Co. LLC,*106 AD3d 466 [1st Dept 2013]). According to a submitted professional engineering publication, the above-noted slip-resistance coefficient afforded a standard, non-hazardous traction surface. Further, to the extent plaintiff alleged the subject staircase was unsafe and violated, inter alia, Multiple Dwelling Law §§ 52 (1), 78 and Administrative Code of City of NY § 28-301.1 because it had only one handrail and the defendant owner otherwise failed to maintain the premises in a safe condition, defendant’s submission of a certificate of occupancy which indicated that the building was in compliance with all applicable statutes, codes and ordinances shifted the burden on the motion to plaintiffs to offer evidence as might raise triable issues on the claims asserted *(see generally Hyman v Queens County Bancorp,*307 AD2d 984, 985-986 [2d Dept 2003], *affd*3 NY3d 743 [2004]; *Ndiaye v NEP W. 119th St. L.P.,*145 AD3d 564 [1st Dept 2016]). Plaintiffs’ submissions, including an expert affidavit that afforded no basis on which to find the expert possessed personal knowledge of the width of the subject staircase, or of the traction coefficient of the painted steps, and who offered no other competent, non-hearsay proof in support of his opinions, were insufficient to raise triable issues as to any of the claims asserted in the complaint *(see generally Gibbs v 3220 Netherland Owners Corp.,*99 AD3d 621 [1st Dept 2012]; *Oboler v City of New York,*31 AD3d 308 [1st Dept 2006], *affd*8 NY3d 888 [2007]; *Pastabar Caffe Corp. v 343 E. 8th St. Assoc., LLC,*147 AD3d 583 [1st Dept 2017]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Andrias, Gische, Kern and Singh, JJ.
No. 09-11045.

#### Precious Johnson, Petitioner v. California.

562 U.S. 860, 131 S. Ct. 135,

178 L. Ed. 2d 81,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5876.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Exhibit 32.1

                            MICROPAC INDUSTRIES, INC.

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

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Micropac  Industries,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  August 28, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Connie Wood,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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 Company.


 /s/ Connie Wood
------------------------------
Connie Wood, President and CEO
(Principal Executive Officer)
No. 12-7546.

#### J. O. *v.*C. L. S.

Ct. App. Colo. Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted, and the order entered February 19, 2013, *[ante,*p. 1155,] is vacated. Certiorari denied.
No. 10-5260.

#### Richard Henry Geffken, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 806, 131 S. Ct. 267,

178 L. Ed. 2d 8,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7783.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
#### Estate of Beals

DA 16-0673

06/20/17

2017 MT 150N

Affirmed

Dist. 16 (Rosebud)
#### Com. v. Martinez

08/30/2016

118 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 144 A.3d 189
# Founder of DLA Land and Maritime supplier alliances to be inducted into DLA Hall of Fame

/ Published June 17, 2021
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
*Editor’s note: This is the sixth of nine stories featuring 2020 DLA Hall of Fame inductees. A video highlighting inductees’ contributions to the agency will be broadcast on DLA’s Facebook page June 23.*

Former Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Acquisition Executive Milton Lewis is one of nine inductees into the 2020 DLA Hall of Fame. 

Lewis became the director of what was then Defense Supply Center Columbus’ Land-Based Weapons Systems Group in the final assignment of his 29-year Army career in 2004. He returned in 2008 as the organization’s first acquisition executive and remained there until he retired in 2017. He was inducted into the DLA Land and Maritime Hall of Fame in 2019.

As a strong proponent of establishing meaningful performance standards for acquisition professionals, Lewis inspired almost 350 acquisition professionals to receive certification through the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act from September 2012 to October 2015. Another 400 associates achieved DAWIA certification in purchasing and 22 were accepted into the Acquisition Corps.

Lewis also championed the First Destination Transportation and Packaging Initiative that integrated multiple DLA supply chains with transportation providers, the Defense Contract Management Agency and the military services. The initiative leveraged DLA’s buying power for better transportation rates, consolidated shipments under existing freight contracts, and aligned DLA’s packaging standards with those of commercial industry to reduce cost and increase efficiencies. According to Lewis’ nomination, the effort reduced costs by $7.6 million between October 2013 and May 2015.

DLA Land and Maritime’s relationship with the defense industry also strengthened after Lewis established its Strategic Supplier Alliance Program. The partnerships resulted in better support for major weapons systems and paved the way to joint contracting opportunities and successful implementation of depot level reparable transfer initiatives mandated by 2005 Base Realignment and Closure decisions.

Markings used by the DLA Land and Maritime Electronics Test Lab to prevent counterfeit parts from entering the military supply chain were developed under Lewis’ leadership as well. He will be inducted into the DLA Hall of Fame later this year. *Editor's note: View Lewis' segment of the 2020 DLA Hall of Fame ceremony video from June 23:*