alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.11

                              JOHN A. CATSIMATIDIS
                               823 Eleventh Avenue
                              New York, N. Y. 10019

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



Gristede's Sloan's, Inc.
823 Eleventh Avenue
New York,  N.Y. 10019-3535

February 27, 1999

             Ref:         Audit of Gristede's Sloan's Inc.  Financial Statements
                          for the Fiscal Year Ended 11/29/98

Gentlemen:

         On November 10, 1997,  Gristede's  Sloan's,  Inc.  ("GRI")  acquired 29
supermarkets and City Produce Distributors, Inc (collectively, the "Food Group")
from entities wholly owned directly or indirectly by myself (the "Acquisition").
The total  consideration  for the Acquisition was $40 million -- and was paid by
GRI issuing $36 million in common stock and  assuming $4 million in  liabilities
owed by the Food  Group to  myself  or  entities  wholly  owned by  myself  (the
"Intercompany Liabilities").

         In connection  with the  Acquisition,  GRI acquired (i) the inventories
located  at the  Food  Group  stores,  (ii)  various  Food  Group  vendor  trade
receivables,  and (iii) certain other Food Group assets. In turn, GRI assumed an
equivalent  amount of Food Group trade vendor  payables  and certain  other Food
Group liabilities.

         In  your  audit  examination  of  GRI's  financial  statements  for FYE
11/29/98,  you have indicated that as of such date, GRI had  approximately  $1.2
million remaining of the approximately  $3.3 million in vendor trade receivables
that  were  acquired  from the  Food  Group  pursuant  to the  Acquisition  (the
"Remaining Vendor Receivables").

         Should any portion of the  Remaining  Vendor  Receivables  be deemed by
yourselves  to be  uncollectible  at GRI's next fiscal year end date of 11/28/99
(the "Net  Uncollectible  Receivables"),  I agree to have such Net Uncollectible
Receivables  offset,  dollar for dollar,  against the Intercompany  Liabilities,
provided  however  that the  aggregate  amount  of such  offsets  do not  exceed
$1,000,000.  Subsequent  recoveries  against the Net  Uncollectible  Receivables
shall be available to pay Intercompany Liabilities.


                                   Page 1 of 2

<PAGE>


I agree not to permit the level of  Intercompany  Liabilities  on GRI's books to
fall below  $1,000,000  prior to the  issuance  of GRI's  audited  FYE  11/28/99
financial statements, to cover any contingent liability herein.

This letter supercedes and nullifies the prior June 9, 1998 letter,  "Reference:
Audit of Gristede's Sloan's, Inc. Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended
11/30/97" previously executed by myself.



Sincerely,


 /s/ John Catsimatidis
----------------------
John Catsimatidis








BDO16


                                   Page 2 of 2
REGISTERED MAIL,                   January 17, 1996
----------------

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
------------------------


The First National Bank of Boston
Shareholder Services Department
150 Royall Street
Canton, Massachusetts 02021
MS-45-01-11

Attn:  Ms. Jean Parillo

Dear Sirs:

     I refer you to the Rights Agreement dated as of January 30, 1986 (`Rights
Agreement') between you and Dynamics Corporation of America (``Company'').
This letter shall constitute notice to you that the Company, acting through its
Board of Directors and pursuant to the Board's resolution adopted at its meeting
on December 27, 1995, has determined to extend the Expiration Date of the Rights
(as defined in the Rights Agreement) for a period of ten years, or until
February 14, 2006, as provided for in Section 7(b) of the Rights Agreement.  The
Company agrees to continue to be bound by and to perform its obligations under
the Rights Agreement.  Please acknowledge receipt of this notice and your
agreement to continue to be bound by and to perform your obligations under the
Rights Agreement by executing in the place provided and returning to the Company
the enclosed copy of this letter in the postage paid, self-addressed envelope
provided herewith.

                         Very truly yours,

                         DYNAMICS CORPORATION OF AMERICA


                         by:     /s/Henry V. Kensing
                            -------------------------------
                                   Henry V. Kensing,
                                   Vice President,
                                   General Counsel
                                    and Secretary


Receipt so acknowledged and so agreed:

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON

by:  /s/ Daniel T. Notartomaso, Jr., Senior Manager
   ------------------------------------------------
#### In the Matter of Shui Yuk Mak Chin, Also Known as Shui Yuk Mak and Others, Deceased. Jade Joan Hon, Respondent; Tin Yat Chin, Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 421]

In a contested probate proceeding, the objectant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Kelly, S.), dated March 10, 2015, as, upon an order of the same court dated January 22, 2015, granting the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the objections to probate, admitted the last will and testament of the decedent to probate.

Ordered that the notice of appeal from the order dated January 22, 2015, is deemed to be a premature notice of appeal from the decree *(see*CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the decree is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the objections to the probate of the decedent’s will by demonstrating that the will was duly executed, the decedent had testamentary capacity, and no undue influence or fraud was exercised on the decedent *(see Matter of Capuano,*93 AD3d 666, 668 [2012]; *Matter of Engelhardt,*88 AD3d 997 [2011]; *Matter of Klingman,*60 AD3d 949, 950 [2009]; *Matter of Moskoff,*41 AD3d 481, 482 [2007]). In opposition, the objectant failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Matter of West,*147 AD3d 592, 593 [2017]; *Matter of Mele,*113 AD3d 858, 860-861 [2014]; *Matter of*DiDomenico, 101 AD3d 998, 1000 [2012]; *Matter of Zirinsky,*43 AD3d 946, 948 [2007]).

The objectant’s contention that a bequest in the will to the objectant’s former wife should be invalidated was properly rejected by the Surrogate’s Court *(see*EPTL 3-4.1 [a]; *Matter of Coffed,*46 NY2d 514, 519 [1979]; *Matter of North,*32 AD2d 862, 863 [1969]).

Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court properly granted the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment.

Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
# DLA Land and Maritime welcomes new chief of staff

/ Published March 19, 2021
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
U.S. Navy Capt. Dinis Pimentel joined the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime leadership team as chief of staff this month following the departure of Air Force Col. Samuel Payne for his new assignment at DLA headquarters. 

In his latest role, Pimentel will serve as a principal advisor to Land and Maritime’s commander and deputy commander on operations and readiness matters for the 2,500-strong organization. 

Pimentel hails from Hudson, Massachusetts, and is a 1992 graduate of Worcester Polytechnic Institute. His previous assignments include positions with the Navy Reserve NATO Deployable Joint Task Force Support Group, U.S. Forces – Iraq J35P Force Protection, Undersea Warfare Operations detachments and the Navy Reserve Undersea Rescue Headquarters among others. 

Notably, he participated in the search and rescue efforts for Argentine submarine ARA San Juan while deputy commander of CTG 46 in the country with operational control of eight at-sea search and rescue ships. ARA San Juan went missing during a routine patrol Nov. 15, 2017, touching off an international search involving more than 30 aircraft and ships and 13 countries scouring an area the size of Spain. The remains of the submarine were located a year later.

Pimentel has deployed in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn serving in roles that included deputy commander of biometric operations in Iraq for III Corps and 18th Airborne Corps and deputy of biometrics for U.S. Division – North.

In Pimentel’s most recent assignment, he served as the commanding officer for Navy Reserve, Commander Naval Forces Japan Headquarters. 

He holds a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering and is a fully qualified joint officer.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33754-33755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16365]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of the Secretary
[Public Notice 2841]


Delegation of Authority No. 145-1; to the Assistant Secretary for 
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

    By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, 
including the authority of section 4 of the Act of May 26, 1949 (22 
U.S.C. 2658), I hereby amend Delegation of authority No. 145 as 
follows.
    Section 1(g) is amended (I) in the title by striking ``Matters'' 
and inserting in its place ``and Law Enforcement Affairs''; (II) in 
subparagraph 1(g)(1) by striking ``section 481'' each time it appears 
and inserting in its place ``sections 481 and 487'' and by striking 
``Procurement Regulations (41 CFR Chapter 6)'' and inserting in its 
place ``Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 6)''; and (III) in 
subparagraph 1(g)(3) by inserting ``and anticrime'' after 
``international narcotics control'', to read:
    ``(g) To the Assistant Secretary for International Narcotics and 
Law Enforcement Affairs:
    ``(1) Those functions conferred upon the President by sections 481 
and 487 of the act, together with all those authorities contained in 
the act, to the extent necessary or appropriate to accomplish the 
purposes of sections 481 and 487 of the act: Provided, That Department 
of State procurement for the International Narcotics Control Program 
shall be carried out in accordance with Department of State Acquisition 
Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 6).
    ``(2) Those functions conferred upon the Secretary of State by the 
determination of the President pursuant to section 604(a) of the act, 
dated October 18, 1961 (26 FR 10543), and by section 4 of the Executive 
Order 11223 of May 12, 1965 (30 FR 6635).
    ``(3) The functions of negotiating, concluding and terminating 
international agreements relating to international narcotics control 
and anticrime programs subject to the concurrences required by the 
Circular 175 Procedure.''
    This Delegation of Authority shall be effective upon signature.


[[Page 33755]]


    Dated: May 31, 1998.
Madeleine K. Albright.
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 98-16365 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-M
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2355 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2355

  To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel EMPRESS.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               August 3 (legislative day, July 20), 1994

   Mr. Lott introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize a certificate of documentation for the vessel EMPRESS.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation for the vessel 
EMPRESS, United States official number 975018.

                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Eric Haskell, Interim Chief Executive Officer of SunCom Wireless, Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SunCom Wireless, Inc.; 

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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [omitted in accordance with Section III. E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986 and SEC Release No. 34-51293] 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, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) [omitted in accordance with Section III. E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986 and SEC Release No. 34-51293]; 

(c) 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 coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

(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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: August 14, 2006
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARSHAN SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72477

Agency No. A077-843-798

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Darshan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

APR 23 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72477

an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v.

Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as

untimely where the motion was filed over six years after the BIA’s final order, see

8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Singh failed to present sufficient evidence of changed

circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for

filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597

F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (newly submitted evidence must be “qualitatively

different” from the evidence presented at the prior hearing); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at

994-97 (evidence was irrelevant in light of prior adverse credibility determination).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2  CERTIFICATION 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 Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2011 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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.   Date: May 16, 2011/s/ Richard L. Feinstein
Richard L. Feinstein
Chief Financial Officer
No. 10-5862.

#### Eric McFadden, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 940, 131 S. Ct. 352,

178 L. Ed. 2d 228,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7603.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 699.
No. D-2561.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Douglas Clinton Crawford.

562 U.S. 817, 131 S. Ct. 409,

178 L. Ed. 2d 273,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7601.

October 4, 2010.

Douglas Clinton Crawford, of Las Vegas, Nevada, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
#### Rosa, Matter of, v June Elec. Corp.

3d Dept: 140 AD3d 1353

denied
No. 10-5486.

#### Jason Rebardi, Petitioner v. Burl Cain, Warden.

562 U.S. 924, 131 S. Ct. 307,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7376.

178 L. Ed. 2d 200,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
No. 10-6016.

#### Joshua T. Woolridge, Petitioner v. City and County of Riverside, California, et al.

562 U.S. 1007, 131 S. Ct. 509,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8620.

178 L. Ed. 2d 377,

November 1, 2010.

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

f or the Fifth Circuit

____________ No. 22

- 60319 Summary Calendar

____________ Miguel Soto Hinojos,

Petitioner ,

versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General , Respondent

.

______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A034 574 483

______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : * Miguel Soto Hinojos , a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the d enial of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir

. R

. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 6, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-60319 Document: 00516810324 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2023No. 22

- 60319

2 We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions , 880 F. 3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and legal determinations are reviewed de novo. Lopez

- Gomez v. Ashcroft , 263 F.3d 442, 444 (5th Cir. 2001). Soto Hinojos has abandoned all issues raised for review by failing to adequately brief them

. See S oadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) . While Soto Hinojos contends that he demonstrated that he was entitled to withholding of removal, the brief fail s to address the BIA’s finding that he waived any challenge to his withholding claim by not presenting it to the immigration judge

. See Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)

. Similarly, with respect to his CAT cl aim, So to Hinojos fails to address the BIA’s conclusion that he waived any challenge to the immigration judge’s finding that he could safely relocate within Mexico to avoid torture. See Brinkmann , 813 F.2d at 748. Moreover, S ot o Hinojos’s scant and concl usory argument regarding his CAT claim fails

to offer supporting record citations or to explain how the cited legal authorities support his argument

. S ee Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). Accordingly, Soto Hinojos ’s petition for review is DENIED

. Additionally, the Government’s motion to dismis s is DENIED , and retained counsel’s motion to withdra w is DENIED as unnecessary

. Case: 22-60319 Document: 00516810324 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2023
#### Wavertree Corporation, Appellant, v Bellet Construction Co., Inc., Respondent.

[69 NYS3d 629]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), entered October 21, 2016, in favor of defendant, upon a jury verdict, and bringing up for review an order, same *553court (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered February 20, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its delay damages and attorneys’ fees claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Both the motion and the trial court properly determined that the jury should resolve the question of whether plaintiff was entitled to delay damages and attorneys’ fees based on defendant’s breach of the contract, and the jury found that defendant did not breach the contract *(see Smith v Putnam,*145 AD2d 383, 385 [1st Dept 1988], *appeal dismissed in part, denied in part*74 NY2d 758 [1989]; *Howard L. Jacobs, P. C. v Citibank,*92 AD2d 786 [1st Dept 1983], *affd*61 NY2d 869 [1984]).

A rational jury could also have found, based on the trial testimony, that plaintiff waived these claims when it made the final payment to defendant in full, with the approval of its architect, without deducting the liquidated damage amount and the attorneys’ fees, given that the contract provided at section 2.3, that an extension of time to complete the project was defendant’s remedy in the event delays resulted from plaintiff’s actions.

The motion and trial courts also properly concluded that there were issues of fact as to plaintiff’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees and costs in that sections 8.2.2 and 8.13.1 of the contract required a finding of fault by defendant, breach of the contract, or that the claim related to the performance of the work. Here, a rational jury could conclude that defendant was not at fault for any damages incurred by plaintiff or that it had waived the claim.

Concur—Acosta, P.J., Sweeny, Gische, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
2017-0160.

#### State ex rel. Miller v. Kidron Volunteer Fire Dept., Inc.

In Mandamus. On relators’ application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.