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

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

ANOORAQ RESOURCES CORPORATION
  (the "Company")

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each
  of the undersigned officers of the Company, do hereby certify, to such officers
  knowledge, that:

the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended October 31, 2003 of
      the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
    the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


|Date: April 27, 2004                 | Date: April 27, 2004                            
|------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------
|                                     |                                                 
|                                     |                                                 
|/s/ Ronald W. Thiessen               | /s/ Jeffrey R. Mason                            
|                                     |                                                 
|Ronald W. Thiessen                   | Jeffrey R. Mason                                
|Director and Chief Executive Officer | Director, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary



---
#### Murphy v County of Suffolk

2d Dept: 149 AD3d 854

denied
No. 10-159.

#### Arizona Association of Providers for Persons with Disabilities, et al., Petitioners v. J. Kenneth Mangum, Judge, Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County.

562 U.S. 896, 131 S. Ct. 331,

178 L. Ed. 2d 146,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6264.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, denied.
#### C. Louise Hepworth, Respondent, v Douglas J. Hepworth et al., Appellants.

[64 NYS3d 885]

*462Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered September 1, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, denied defendants’ cross motion for partial summary judgment, and declared that the amendments made in October 2013 to the Hepworth Family Residence Trust Agreement were invalid, unenforceable, and null and void ab initio, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, the cross motion granted, and it is declared that the amendments are valid and enforceable. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

The issue on this appeal is whether the independent trustee’s amendment that gave defendant Douglas J. Hepworth (defendant) input, which he did not have before the amendment, in removing and appointing an independent trustee is a right or power with respect to trust property (Trust Agreement, art XI, f 2 [Irrevocability and Amendment] [the independent trustee may amend the trust agreement but “shall” not bestow on plaintiff grantor or defendant “any additional rights or power with respect to the Trust Property”]). If it is, the amendment is invalid; if it is not, it is valid.

It is evident from examining the trust agreement as a whole *(see e.g. Matter of Fields,*302 NY 262, 272 [1951]) that the trust—created by a then-married couple to benefit their children—was an estate-planning device. If the power to remove and appoint an independent trustee were a right or power with respect to trust property, plaintiff (the grantor) would have retained an impermissible power pursuant to the original, unamended trust agreement, and her gift to the trust would be deemed incomplete *(see e.g. Estate of Vak v C.I.R.,*973 F2d 1409, 1414 [8th Cir 1992]; *see*trust agreement, art II, § C [Distributions to Beneficiaries] [independent trustee has absolute discretion as to the amount and time of trust property distributions]). This would defeat the whole purpose of the trust agreement and create an absurd result, which we cannot sanction *(see e.g. Greenwich Capital Fin. Prods., Inc. v Negrin,*74 AD3d 413, 415 [1st Dept 2010]). Thus, by the same token, giving defendant input into removing and appointing an independent trustee, the amendment does not give him “any *additional*rights or power with respect to the Trust Property” (emphasis added).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Renwick, Gische, Oing and Singh, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.15


                                  AMENDMENT TO
                              INFOCURE CORPORATION
                             1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN


     Pursuant to the power reserved in Section VIII of the InfoCure Corporation
1996 Stock Option Plan and in connection with the approval granted by the
shareholders of InfoCure Corporation, Section V, Available Shares and Stock
Adjustments, is hereby amended to delete "1,125,000" from the first sentence
thereof and to insert in its place "3,000,000."


     This Amendment to the InfoCure Corporation 1996 Stock Option Plan shall be
effective as of the date that the shareholders of InfoCure Corporation adopted
the Amendment to the Plan.


                                       INFOCURE CORPORATION


                                       By: /s/ James K. Price
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          James K. Price
                                          Executive Vice President and Secretary

                                       Date: March 30, 2000
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1569]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Bioengineering and Environmental 
Systems (No. 1189).
    Date and Time: February 11-12, 1998; 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 
390, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: H. Frederick Bowman, Program Director, 
Biomedical Engineering and Research to Aid Persons with 
Disabilities, Division of Bioengineering and Environmental Systems, 
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 
22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1318.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSE for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 20, 1998.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-1569 Filed 1-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           8,804
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,300
<INVENTORY>                                     20,038
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,214
<PP&E>                                          51,468
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,845
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 200,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,561
<BONDS>                                         97,562
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         14
<COMMON>                                         9,495
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,408
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   200,325
<SALES>                                         48,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,633
<CGS>                                           38,142
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 630
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,892
<INCOME-TAX>                                       681
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,211
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,211
<EPS-BASIC>                                         32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       32


</TABLE>
#### Segarra, Matter of, v Clausen

2d Dept: 153 AD3d 834

denied
2017-1513.

#### State ex rel. Davis v. Laster Mays.

In Mandamus. On respondent’s motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, French, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., concur.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
# DLA Aviation employees remember 9/11: Drew Warren

/ Published Sept. 10, 2021
Richmond, Va., 
*In commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Public Affairs Office is running a week-long series Sept. 6-11 sharing the stories of DLA Aviation employees who remember where they were and what they were doing that fateful day.*

**Name:**Preston “Drew” Warren

**Organization:**DLA Aviation, Richmond, Virginia

**What is your job title, and what do you do, specifically?**I’m a supervisory product specialist. My team of eight outstanding PSs ensure DLA purchases high quality and correct parts for the nation’s warfighters.

**Please tell where you were and what you were doing on Sept. 11, 2001.** I was a jet engine mechanic with the Virginia Air National Guard based in Sandston, Virginia. I was in the engine shop working on overhauling an F-16 jet engine when someone came out of the breakroom and said a plane just flew into the World Trade Center. We all thought that was crazy and how could a pilot do that on accident. When the second plane hit the towers, we knew it was no accident. The base immediately went into Force Protection Condition Level Delta, armed guards were stationed at every building, and we had six fighter jets at all times armed up and flying combat air patrols over Washington, D.C., and other major cities, including New York and Chicago. Our jets were also escorting Air Force One. 

**What can we do to ensure future generations never forget that fateful day?** Continue to share our stories with them, have annual remembrance services as reminders of what happened that day and all the innocent lives lost.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00583-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE of Willie H. FORISTER, Deceased

From the County Court, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5795-12

Honorable Jim Scanlan, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. All costs 

are ORDERED assessed against the party who incurred them.

SIGNED June 11, 2014.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-84566, 333-76698,
333-62444, 333-41782 and 333-117925 and Form S-8 Nos. 333-110058, 333-97609, 333-62414,
333-62410, 333-62406, 333-94345, 333-41477, 333-57881 and 333-57879) and related Prospectuses of EPIX
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 4, 2005, with respect to the financial statements of EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc., EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc., included in the
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.

|                                    |  | /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|----------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|Boston, Massachusetts
March 4, 2005 |  |                     

---



QuickLinks
#### Barbara J. Fried et al., Appellants, v Lehman Brothers Real Estate Associates III, L.P., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[67 NYS3d 145]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered August 25, 2016, dismissing the amended complaint against defendants-respondents, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The first and second causes of action, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and gross negligence in misrepresentation, failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of CPLR 3016 (b). *465The allegations of scienter here were not pleaded with the requisite particularity, but are conclusory, and scienter may not reasonably be inferred from the circumstantial evidence relied on by plaintiffs *(see Giant Group v Arthur Andersen LLP,*2 AD3d 189, 190 [1st Dept 2003]). The related claims against individual defendants were also correctly dismissed.

The third, fourth, and fifth causes of action, which allege breaches of fiduciary duties, are duplicative of the breach of contract claim *(see Nemec v Shrader,*991 A2d 1120, 1129 [Del 2010]). In addition, with respect to those claims, as well as the sixth cause of action, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the waiver of a portion of the management fees, plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations of bad faith are not adequate to overcome the exculpatory provision in the parties’ contracts, which bar breach of fiduciary duty claims except in cases of fraud, bad faith, willful misconduct or gross negligence *(see Wood v Baum,*953 A2d 136, 141 [Del 2008]).

The court correctly dismissed the eighth, ninth and tenth causes of action, which allege that the contracts included unconscionable provisions, as the penalties contained in the contracts are permitted in limited partnership agreements under both Delaware and New York law *(see*Del Code Ann, tit 6, § 17-502 [c]; Partnership Law § 121-502 [c]).

The breach of contract claim was deficiently pleaded. While plaintiffs alleged, in their breach of fiduciary duty claims and their claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conduct implicating specific provisions of the relevant contracts, they never pleaded, in those claims or the breach of contract claim, the breach of any specific contractual provisions. The good faith and fair dealing claim is duplicative of the breach of contract claim.

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

Concur—Tom, J.P., Renwick, Gische, Oing and Singh, JJ.
#### Com. v. Pelino

04/12/2016

22 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 97
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0452

JOHNNY TYRONE HUFFMAN, JR.,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

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 June 12, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 3 2023

05/03/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0452
No. 09-11066.

#### Daniel D. Dydzak, Petitioner v. State Bar of California.

562 U.S. 861, 131 S. Ct. 136,

178 L. Ed. 2d 83,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6288.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
# Congresswoman visits Defense Supply Center Richmond

/ Published March 27, 2019
Richmond, Va, 
U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., visited Defense Supply Center Richmond on March 22 and met with Air Force Brig. Gen. Linda Hurry, Defense Logistics Agency Aviation and Defense Supply Center Richmond commander, for an overall introduction to the installation and its purpose. 

With about 25 DLA staff members and DSCR tenant activities representatives present, Spanberger freely admitted that she was unfamiliar with the installation’s mission “to sustain warfighter readiness and lethality by delivering proactive, global logistics in peace and war.” She was given a brief overview of how DLA fits into the Department of Defense, the benefits of the DLA enterprise and the major tenant communities on center. 

“We are basically a micro chasm of any other city,” said Hurry in reference to the center’s infrastructures and self-reliance. DSCR employs over 3,047 civilian, military and contract personnel and is located on a 600-acre installation in Chesterfield County, Va.

Brig. Gen. James Ring, joint staff director, Virginia National Guard, was in attendance and spoke about the Virginia National Guard Sergeant Bob Slaughter Headquarters on center.  It provides workspace for the adjutant general of Virginia, the Virginia National Guard joint staff and Air National Guard staff, formerly located at Mullins Readiness Center in Sandston.

“We support nearly 9,000 uniformed personnel in the Virginia Army and Air National Guard from our headquarters here on DSCR,” he said.

 Hurry explained the DLA vision which states, “The nation’s combat logistics support agency, global, agile, and innovative, focused on the warfighter first!” 

“We provide anything needed to support aviation, it’s a huge responsibility. We support the warfighter by ensuring they have what they need, when they need it,” she said.

Spanberger appeared impressed with the organization’s reach and inquired about the decision-making process during times of emergency.

“We have agreements in place to assist with natural disasters of many types all around the world,” said Hurry. “Open communication is the key to our success.”

Also in attendance were representatives from the U.S. Army Reserve 80th Training Command, U.S. Naval History and Heritage Command, Defense Contract Management Agency and American Federation of Government Employees Local 1992.

After the briefing, Spanberger toured the facility and posed for a photo with the famous Bellwood Elk, located on DSCR, quipping that her social media followers would be upset if she missed out on the opportunity for a photo.

Spanberger was elected as the representative for Virginia’s 7th congressional district in 2017.  The lines of that district were redrawn in 2016 and now include parts of Henrico, Chesterfield, in which DSCR resides, and Spotsylvania counties. It also includes all of Amelia, Culpepper, Goochland, Louisa, Nottoway, Orange and Powhatan.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of CFO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel J. Taylor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:



| | (1) |  | The Report 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.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



February 20, 2004



/s/    DANIEL J.
TAYLORDaniel J. Taylor Chief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section
906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### M.A. Angeliades, Inc., Respondent, v Hill International, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[52 NYS3d 634]

*608Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered July 29, 2016, which granted plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly exercised its discretion in allowing plaintiff to amend the complaint, because the facts underlying the amendment were made known to defendant when the original complaint was filed and the amendment seeks only to add a new theory of liability based on those facts (see *Estrella v New York City Tr. Auth.,*6 AD3d 305, 306 [1st Dept 2004]). Although defendant had the burden to establish prejudice, it submitted no evidence suggesting that it would be hindered in the preparation of its case or prevented from taking measures to support its position, and examinations before trial have not yet been held *(see Aldrich v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc.,*127 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2015]; *Carey v Schwab,*122 AD3d 1142 [3d Dept 2014], *lv dismissed*25 NY3d 1062 [2015]; *Leslie v Hymes,*60 AD2d 564 [1st Dept 1977]).

Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff has set forth sufficient evidence to establish that the proposed amendment seeking to add a cause of action for lien law trust fund diversion together with a request for punitive damages is not specious (see *Pier 59 Studios, L.P. v Chelsea Piers, L.P,*40 AD3d 363, 366 [1st Dept 2007]). Defendant’s argument that there is nothing in the record to support plaintiff’s claim that prior to January 2010, defendant diverted at minimum $671,686.82 in payments from codefendant for the work plaintiff performed is more appropriately raised on a motion for summary judgment or at trial, since a motion to amend is not a proper vehicle for the determination of the merits *(see Dumesnil v Proctor & Schwartz,*199 AD2d 869, 871 [3d Dept 1993]).

Concur—Tom, J.R, Sweeny, Richter, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.
No. 09-10697.

#### Christopher O’Neal, Petitioner v. Louisiana.

562 U.S. 849, 131 S. Ct. 99,

178 L. Ed. 2d 62,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5959.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, denied.

Same case below, 7 So. 3d 182.
TS-ASLT60

Attachment #9 

Pt. 2, Sec. B 

Additional Information on the Absence of Tank Truck Cleaning Operations at Road 

Construction Sites