alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Lillian R. Gould, Deceased. Roger A. Levin, Appellant; Rhoda Forman, Respondent.

[769 NYS2d 525]

*229Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about June 3, 2003, which, in a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 1420 for construction of a will, upon the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment, ruled that respondent is entitled to share equally in the residuary estate, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Article fourth of the subject will states that “no provision” is being made for respondent, the testator’s niece, “not for any lack of love and affection, but because I believe she has sufficient resources and is well provided for”; article twenty-second insistently disposes of the residuary estate equally among respondent, another niece and petitioner, a nephew who is also the executor. The Surrogate concluded that article fourth does not evince an intent to disinherit respondent but rather was intended to explain the absence of a preresiduary bequest to her. This conclusion was correctly made, without resort to the extrinsic evidence offered by both sides *(see generally Matter of Fabbri,*2 NY2d 236, 240 [1957]), on the basis that article fourth immediately precedes 16 paragraphs of specific cash bequests (articles fifth-twentieth) , including bequests of equal amounts to petitioner and the other niece. We also note that article twenty-third appoints respondent as petitioner’s successor executor. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams and Lerner, JJ.
#### Com. v. Calloway 4

04/26/2016

392 WAL (2015)

4

. Justice DONOHUE did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 133 A.3d 67
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                          97,429
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  156,174
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               253,603
<PP&E>                                       4,907,066
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,016,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,263,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,595
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          393,262
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,769,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,263,212
<SALES>                                        739,193
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               759,340
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,222,378
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,534
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (465,572)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (45,294)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (420,278)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (420,278)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
#### Com. v. Wilson

10/29/2015

383 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1117
# The few, the proud, the Marines. Celebrating 247 years of the fighting spirit

/ Published Nov. 16, 2022
RICHMOND, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency Aviation’s Customer Operations Directorate’s United States Marine Corps Customer Facing Division held a cake cutting ceremony in the Frank B. Lotts Conference Center on Defense Supply Center Richmond, Virginia Nov. 10 to celebrate the Corps’ 247th birthday.

Division Chief Marine Lt. Col. Steven DesRosiers was the presiding official and speaker.

The Marine Corps was established Nov. 10, 1775, to augment naval forces in the Revolutionary War. The recruiting headquarters was set up in the Tun Tavern on Water Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which is considered the birthplace of the Marines.
No. 10-5986.

#### Tomas Vargas, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 955, 131 S. Ct. 364,

178 L. Ed. 2d 255,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7790.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 41.
#### People v Brisco

2d Dept: 145 AD3d 1028 (Queens)

denied 3/30/17 (Rivera, J.)
Exhibit 10.29

AMENDMENT TO

AMERICAN DENTAL PARTNERS, INC.

2005 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN, AS AMENDED

The American Dental Partners, Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (the Plan) is hereby amended pursuant to the following provisions:



| | 1. | Definitions
| | -- | -----------

All capitalized terms used in this amendment which are not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings given such terms in the Plan.



| | 2. | Exercise Price of Stock Options
| | -- | -------------------------------

Section 6(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



| | (a) | Exercise Price
| | --- | --------------

The exercise price per Share issuable upon exercise of a Stock Option shall be no less than the fair market value per Share on the date the Stock Option is granted; provided that, if the Participant at
the time an ISO is granted owns stock possessing more than 10% of the total combined voting power of all classes of stock of the Company or of any subsidiary, the exercise price per Share shall be at least 110% of the fair market value of the Shares
subject to the ISO on the date of grant. For purposes of the Plan, the fair market value of the Shares shall mean, as of any given date, the (i) last reported sale price on the New York Stock Exchange on that date, (ii) last reported sale
price on the Nasdaq Stock Market on that date, (iii) mean between the high and low bid and ask prices, as reported by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. on that date, or (iv) last reported sale price on any other stock
exchange on which the Shares are listed on that date, whichever is applicable; provided that if none of the foregoing is applicable, then the fair market value of the Shares shall be the value determined in good faith by the Committee, in its sole
discretion.



| | 3. | Effective Date; Construction
| | -- | ----------------------------

The effective date of this amendment is February 23, 2010, and this amendment shall be deemed to be a part of the Plan as of such date. In the event of any inconsistencies between the provisions of
the Plan and this amendment, the provisions of this amendment shall control. Except as modified by this amendment, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect without change.
No. 10-144.

#### James D. Schneller, Petitioner v. Able Home Care Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 895, 131 S. Ct. 322,

178 L. Ed. 2d 145,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6668,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit
      32.1








**The
      following certification is provided by the undersigned Chief Executive Officer
      and Chief Financial Officer of Clark, Inc. on the basis of such officers’
knowledge and belief for the sole purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002.**





**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Clark, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on November 3, 2006 (the “Report”), I, Tom Wamberg, Chairman
      of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and I, Jeffrey W. Lemajeur, 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,
      that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/
      Tom Wamberg


Name:  Tom
      Wamberg


Title:
      Chairman of the Board


and
      Chief
      Executive Officer


Date:
      November 3, 2006











/s/
      Jeffrey W. Lemajeur


Name:  Jeffrey
      W. Lemajeur


Title:
      Chief Financial Officer


Date:
      November 3,
      2006




















*A
      signed original 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.*
II

Calendar No. 672

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2447

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel LADY HAWK.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 21 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Mr. STEVENS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

SEPTEMBER 28 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Reported by Mr. HOLLINGS, without amendment

A BILL

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel

LADY HAWK.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That notwithstanding sections 12106, 12107, and 12108

4 of title 46, United States Code, and section 27 of the Mer5 chant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applica6 ble on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary

7 of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation
2

S 2447 RS

1 for the vessel LADY HAWK, United States official num2 ber 961095.
Calendar No. 672

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2447

A BILL

To authorize a certificate of documentation for the

vessel LADY HAWK

SEPTEMBER 28 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Reported without amendment
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33919-33920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16483]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-142-010]


KN Interstate Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Tariff Filing

June 16, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 12, 1998, KN Interstate Gas Transmission 
Co. (KNI), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1-D, the following tariff sheets to be effective 
November 1, 1997:

Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 18B
Original Sheet No. 61A

    KNI states that these tariff sheets are being filed in accordance 
with the Office of Pipeline Regulation's (OPR) letter order dated May 
29, 1998, in (KNI) Order No. 587 proceeding in Docket Nos. RP97-142-008 
and RP97-142-009.
    KNI states that copies of the filing were served upon KNI's 
jurisdictional customers, interested public bodies and all parties to 
the proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public

[[Page 33920]]

inspection in the Public Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16483 Filed 6-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 09-1362.

#### Todd C. Bank, Petitioner v. Cooper, Paroff, Cooper & Cook, et al.

562 U.S. 830, 131 S. Ct. 93,

178 L. Ed. 2d 28,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6292.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Same case below, 356 Fed. Appx. 509.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Carlos Ortiz, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 440]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered May 18, 2010, unanimously affirmed.

Application by defendant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833 [1st Dept 1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Friedman, J.P., Richter, Gesmer, Kern and Moulton, JJ.
No. 09-11341.

#### Phillip Jackson, Petitioner v. McKither Bodison, Warden.

562 U.S. 875, 131 S. Ct. 182,

178 L. Ed. 2d 109,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6473.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 426.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         150,316
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  334,074
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,985
<INVENTORY>                                    455,461
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,123,916
<PP&E>                                         262,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                 146,952
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,109,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          832,451
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        99,046
<OTHER-SE>                                    (46,645)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,109,874
<SALES>                                      1,688,550
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,688,550
<CGS>                                           98,762
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,669,183
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             188,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,358
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,096
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,262
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,262
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-123011, 333-123009 and 333-164686) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (333-144349 and 333-129879) of our report dated October 14, 2011,except for Note 12 as to which the date is October 15, 2012 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of KMG Chemicals, Inc. (the “Company”) as of July 31, 2011, and for each of the two years in the period endedJuly 31, 2011 included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2012. 

/s/ UHY LLP

Houston, Texas 

October 15, 2012
# Second quarter employees of the quarter

/ Published July 5, 2022
FORT BELVOIR, Va. , 
Defense Logistics Agency Energy is proud to announce the second quarter, fiscal year 2022 military and civilian employees of the quarter. 

These members went on to compete in the DLA-wide second quarter Military and Employee Recognition Program. 

**Field Grade Officer Category:****Navy Cmdr. William Jakubowicz**, DLA Energy East Pacific. As the commander of the DLA Energy East Pacific region located on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Jakubowicz worked to assist environmental cleanup of the Red Hill fuel facility and helped NAVSUP and U.S. Congress develop a permanent solution.

**Senior NCO Category:****Army Sgt. 1st Class Heath William**, DLA Energy Middle East. Despite supply chain constraints and potential fuel shortages, Williams coordinated direct bulk fuel delivery for 33 sites across 10 countries resulting in the safe delivery of 10 million gallons of fuel critical for regional operations.Williams also won Senior NCO across the DLA enterprise. 

**Category B Civilian (GS/WG/WL 7-12):****David Andrews**, DLA Energy Headquarters. Andrews is a customer account specialist who deployed to Europe as DLA's fuel lead and member of the DLA Rapid Deployment Team. 

**Category C Civilian (GS13-15/WS):****Scott Thomas**, DLA Energy Indo-Pacific Integrator. As our liaison to INDOPACOM, Thomas helped handle the complexities of the Red Hill facility on Oahu, Hawaii, providing leadership and regional insights.
# Defense Distribution Center Susquehanna presented the 2019 Commander in Chief's Award for Installation Excellence

/ Published Aug. 13, 2019
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pennsylvania, was presented the 2019 Commander in Chief’s Award for Installation Excellence August 9 during a video teleconference ceremony hosted by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, Honorable Robert H. McMahon.The Commander in Chief's Annual Award for Installation Excellence recognizes outstanding and innovative efforts of the people who operate and maintain U.S. military installations. Defense Distribution Center Susquehanna, was selected for this highly competitive presidential award for providing distribution excellence and world-class distribution support to more than 20,000 global U.S. Armed Service and whole of government customers. The installation’s seasoned civilian and military professionals successfully supported numerous contingency and humanitarian assistance operations around the world, and were routinely recognized by the highest levels of major commands and multiple state and federal government agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Defense.

Installations compete on how well they achieve the department's objectives in several areas of installation management, including mission support, energy conservation, quality of life and unit morale, environmental stewardship, real property management, safety, health and security, communications and public relations. Excellent installations enable better mission performance and enhance the working and living conditions for military men and women, DOD civilians and their families. 

“Each of the winning installations succeeded at being the best in achieving excellence in performing installation management within their military service and the Defense Logistics Agency,” said McMahon, adding, “I’m extremely honored to present this award and you all should be proud of this major accomplishment.” 

Defense Distribution Center Susquehanna received a crystal Installation Excellence trophy, an Installation Excellence flag and a letter from the Commander in Chief complementing the organization’s men and women for their outstanding achievements.
#### In the Matter of William H. Coons, Deceased. Shirley C. Coons, Respondent; Thomas E. Coons, Appellant.

[51 NYS3d 575]

*732In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 711 to remove Thomas W. Coons as the executor of the estate of William H. Coons, Thomas W. Coons appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, S.), dated June 4, 2015, which denied his motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable by Thomas W. Coons personally.

The decedent, William H. Coons, was survived by his wife, Shirley C. Coons (hereinafter Shirley) and two children from a previous marriage, Thomas W. Coons (hereinafter Thomas) and Deborah Williams. Pursuant to the terms of the decedent’s will, Thomas applied for and, in November 2013 was granted, letters testamentary appointing him as executor of the decedent’s estate.

Shirley filed this petition pursuant to SCPA 711 to remove Thomas as executor of the decedent’s estate. Thomas thereafter moved to dismiss the petition. Although Thomas did not specify the statute or rule upon which the motion was based, the Surrogate’s Court treated the motion as one pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The court denied Thomas’s motion, and he appeals. We affirm.

Letters testamentary may be revoked where, inter alia, due to “misconduct in the execution of his [or her] office or dishonesty, drunkenness, improvidence or want of understanding, [the executor] is unfit for the execution of his [or her] office” (SCPA 711 [2]; *see*SCPA 707 [1] [e]). A testator has the right to determine who is most suitable to settle his or her affairs and that determination is not to be lightly set aside (see *Matter of Duke,*87 NY2d 465, 473 [1996]; *Matter of Berlin,*135 AD3d 746, 750 [2016]; *Matter of Kaufman,*137 AD3d 1034 [2016]; *Matter of Venezia, 25*AD3d 717, 718 [2006]; *Matter of Petrocelli,*307 AD2d 358, 358 [2003]). Where a beneficiary seeks removal on the ground of dishonesty, the beneficiary must allege “dishonesty in money matters from which a reasonable apprehension may be entertained that the funds of the estate would not be safe in the hands of the executor” *(Matter of Martin,*16 AD2d 807, 807 [1962]).

Here, Shirley alleged that Thomas acted dishonestly in his handling of money matters with respect to the estate by filing false tax returns, refusing to pay to her mortgage proceeds to which she is entitled, and impeding her sale of the decedent’s truck despite having allocated it as a gift to spouse in the estate’s tax returns. These are allegations of “dishonesty in money matters” which, if proved, would raise “a reasonable ap*733prehension” about Thomas’s administration of the estate, particularly since Shirley further alleges that, in each case, Thomas’s conduct was calculated to maximize his own residuary share of the estate *(id.).*Thomas’s remaining contentions are without merit. Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly denied Thomas’s motion to dismiss the petition.

Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and Connolly, JJ., concur.