alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.1


 


Amendment No. RIE539A


 


AMENDMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT is entered into as of December 1, 2004, between CoBANK, ACB (“CoBank”) and DAKOTA
GROWERS PASTA COMPANY, INC., Carrington, North Dakota (the “Company”).


 


BACKGROUND


 


CoBank and the Company are parties to a Master Loan
Agreement dated February 24, 2004 (such agreement, as previously amended,
is hereinafter referred to as the “MLA”). 
CoBank and the Company now desire to amend the MLA.  For that reason, and
for valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged), CoBank and the Company agree as follows:


 


1.               Section 10(A) of the MLA is hereby amended and
restated to read as follows:


 


SECTION 10.  Financial Covenants. 
Unless otherwise agreed to in writing, while this agreement is in
effect:


 


(A) 
Current Ratio.  The Company and its consolidated
Subsidiaries will have at the end of each period for which financial statements
are required to be furnished pursuant to Section 8(H) hereof, a ratio of
consolidated current assets to consolidated current liabilities (both as
determined in accordance with GAAP consistently applied) of not less than 1.10
to 1.0 through and including April 30, 2005, and of not less than 1.25 to
1.0 thereafter.


 


2.               Except as set forth in this amendment,
the MLA, including all amendments thereto, shall continue in full force and
effect as written.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this amendment to be
executed by their duly authorized officers as of the date shown above.


 


 


	
  CoBANK, ACB

  	
  DAKOTA GROWERS PASTA COMPANY, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Thomas Friezen

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  CFO
No. 10-190.

#### Billy Torain, Petitioner v. AT&T Management Services, LP, et al.

562 U.S. 962, 131 S. Ct. 468,

178 L. Ed. 2d 289,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7943,

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 353 Fed. Appx. 37.
#### People v Marshall

App Term, 1st Dept: 54 Misc 3d 130(A) (NY)

denied 3/21/17 (Garcia, J.)
#### In the Matter of Village of Pomona, Appellant, v Town of Ramapo et al., Respondents.

[64 NYS3d 80]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review three determinations of the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo, all dated January 25, 2010, resolving to approve a findings statement pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8) in connection with a proposed development project, to amend the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Ramapo so as to permit the development project, and to rezone the real property on which the development project is proposed to be constructed, respectively, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Walsh II, J.), dated May 8, 2013, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the petition is granted.

Initially, we note that, contrary to the Village of Pomona’s contention, the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo (hereinafter the Town Board) adequately considered the effect of the proposed development on community character. In addition, the record does not support the Village’s contention that the Town Board violated General Municipal Law § 239-m (3). The record demonstrates that, in overriding the recommendations of the Rockland County Department of Planning, the Town Board provided a point-by-point response to its comments and the Village has failed to establish that these responses were insufficient.

However, for the reasons stated in *Matter of Youngewirth v Town of Ramapo Town Bd.*(155 AD3d 755 [2017] [decided herewith]), the Village demonstrated that the Town Board failed to *755adequately consider the environmental impact of placing the proposed development in close proximity to the existing Columbia Gas pipeline, and the combined environmental impact of the pipeline and the development together.

There is no merit to the respondents’ contention that denial of final subdivision approval has no effect upon preliminary site plan approval. By operation of law, denial of the respondents’ final subdivision and site plan itself rescinded the preliminary approval *(see Matter of Aloya v Planning Bd. of Town of Stony Point,*93 NY2d 334 [1999]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the petition *(see Matter of Bronx Comm. for Toxic Free Schs. v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth.,*20 NY3d 148, 155-156 [2012]).

Leventhal, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.
# International Leadership course visits DLA Distribution

/ Published March 29, 2016
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pennsylvania, 
Foreign military officers enrolled in the Navy Supply Corps School’s International Leadership Executive Advanced Development course visited DLA Distribution March 22 to learn about DLA’s global distribution network and tour the Department of Defense’s largest distribution facility. 

Six students, hailing from Chile, Egypt, Tunisia, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Poland, visited the site as part of an annual Naval Supply Systems Command-sponsored seven-week course which covers current logistics and supply trends and processes within the U.S. Navy.   

The visit began with a command overview highlighting DLA’s 24 distribution centers, with a focus on supply chain stock replenishment, and coordination of transportation for customer deliveries.  The students showed particular interest in customer demand patterns of DLA stock versus service-owned items. 

Following the command overview, the group toured DLA Distribution Susquehanna, Pa.’s Eastern Distribution Center, where they viewed the Air Line of Communication air pallet building operation and Radio Frequency Identification tag process.  

The visit is one of many DLA Distribution hosts to allow foreign and domestic service members to gain a first-hand look at the supply chain in action and develop a deeper understanding of DLA Distribution’s global distribution support.
#### Com. v. Pekular

05/16/2016

51 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 136 A.3d 1026
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6704 

CURTIS DALE RICHARDSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SWANSON SERVICES,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

PHILLIP THOMPSON, Sheriff of Horry County in

his official and individual capacity; MARK

SANFORD, Governor of South Carolina; JIM

MCCLAIN, Director of Department of Probation,

Parole and Pardon Services; GWENDOLYN A.

BRIGHT, Director of Parole Board Support

Services,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(CA-03-2426-RBH)

Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 27, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Curtis Dale Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins,

Jr., WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Greenville, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Curtis Dale Richardson appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Richardson v.

Swanson Services, No. CA-03-2426-RBH (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 2005). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Automatic Commercial Ice‐Maker Energy Conservation Rulemaking, Preliminary A

Key Assumptions to be used in the Engineering Analysis and Energy Use Characterizatio

Building

Type

Number

Units/

Building ‐

1990

Estimate1

Number

Units/

Building ‐

2009

Estimate2

Utilization

Factor

(Duty

Cycle)

19903,4

Utilization

Factor

(Duty

Cycle)

20085

Percent

Remote

Condensing

Units

Percent

Water

Cooled6

P

Eq

Education 0.50 1.00 0.45 0.50 TBD 20.00 

Food Sales 0.50 1.00 0.45 0.50 TBD 20.00 

FoodService 1.50 1.00 0.45 0.50 TBD 20.00 

HealthCare 11.00 5.00 0.45 0.50 TBD 20.00 

Lodging 7.00 10.00 0.30 0.50 TBD 20.00 

Retail 0.10 1.00 0.45 0.50 TBD 20.00 

Office 0.10 1.00 0.45 0.50 TBD 20.00 

1) 1993, Arthur D. Little, Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances ‐ Table 4‐3, derived from 2) 2010, Navigant Consulting, Inc ‐ based on information from key manufacturers

3) 1993, Arthur D. Little, Characterization of Commercial Building Appliances ‐ Table 4‐3, derived from 

vendor interviews, and in‐house specialists

4) Utilization, or duty factor is used here to refer to actual yield (harvest) compared to the designated 

equipment, e.g. a 2000 lb machine typically harvesting 1000 lbs would have a utilization factor of .55) 2009, Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial R

6) 2009, Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial R

DOE invites stakeholders to comment on the assumptions below. The most recent data availa

well as historical where available.
Exhibit 32.2



Section 1350 Certification of the

Chief Financial Officer



I, Michael
Smith, the chief financial officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cobra Electronics Corporation for the annual period ended December 31, 2003 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cobra Electronics
Corporation and its subsidiaries.



/S/    MICHAEL SMITHMichael SmithMarch 30, 2004
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-19-00335-CV

Style: Alice Marie Gandy, et al. v. Robert Williamson, Estate of Jimmy Glen Williamson, deceased, 

Jimmy Williamson, P.C., Williamson & Rusnak, Cyndi Rusnak, and Cyndi Rusnak, PLLC

Date motion filed*: March 10, 2020

Type of motion: Appellants’ Unopposed Second Motion for Extension to File Reply Brief

Party filing motion: Appellants

Document to be filed: Reply

Is appeal accelerated?

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: February 11, 2020

Number of previous extensions granted: 1 Current Due date: March 12, 2020

Date Requested: April 2, 2020

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: April 2, 2020

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Julie Countiss____________________

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: ____March 12, 2020_______
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Everett Hardy, Appellant.

[65 NYS3d 702]

An appeal having

been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Jill Konviser, J.), rendered May 17, 2016, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 18, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40507

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESSE VALDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-492-1

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Jesse Valdez has filed a

motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Valdez has filed a response. Our

independent review of the brief, Valdez’s response, and the

record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly,

the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Valdez’s motion to strike the

Anders brief is DENIED. Valdez’s motion to proceed pro se is

also DENIED. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03

(5th Cir. 1998).
No. 09-10654.

#### Lance Bouvira Drew, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1061, 131 S. Ct. 636,

178 L. Ed. 2d 477,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9212.

November 29, 2010.

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

Same case below, 356 Fed. Appx. 258.
#### Com. v. Roman

03/22/2016

466 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 480
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Torres, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 557]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered December 8, 2014, convicting him of criminal mischief in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; *People v Brown,*122 AD3d 133, 141 [2014]; *People v Vasquez,*101 AD3d 1054, 1055 [2012]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.

Chambers, J.P., Roman, Miller and Connolly, JJ., concur.
# Troop Support school supply drive sets students up for success

/ Published Sept. 14, 2023
PHILADELPHIA, 
To ensure Philadelphia-area students start the school year with new pencils, calculators, backpacks and other items, Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support hosted the second annual Fill-A-Backpack drive. School supply items donated by employees from DLA Troop Support, DLA Information Operations, and DLA Contracting Services Office donated the school supply items that were delivered to the local charity Cradles to Crayons for distribution to area schools.   

DLA Troop Support’s Innovative Success and Partnership in Reaching Excellence mentoring program sponsored the drive, which ran from July 17 to Aug. 24.   

“The generosity of the employees is beyond impressive,” said Organizational Development Division Chief and InSPIRE creator, Joanne Anello. “It is such a rewarding feeling to help a child to start the school year with a backpack filled with important supplies. We were so thankful for the donations.”   

This year’s drive surpassed the original goal of items to be collected.  

“We had a goal of collecting 2,700 school supplies and we weren’t sure if we were going to meet that.” Anello added. “But then the DLA Contracting Services Office reached out in the final week and said they had about 10 boxes of supplies they collected to drop off. With that, we surpassed the goal and collected 2,750 items!”   

In just the past two years, InSPIRE has collected approximately 4,000 items for local school children.   

InSPIRE participants also serve as volunteers to collect and sort all the items donated.   

“The amount of donations from our DLA Philadelphia colleagues is overwhelming,” said Michael Tuttle, program analyst and InSPIRE program assistant. “And we’re especially thankful for the volunteers from the InSPIRE program who took the time to sort through and count all the donations ... or else we’d still be counting them!”   

InSPIRE gives DLA Troop Support opportunities to give back, as the muti-faceted program also features mentoring, professional development and community service. Starting in the former Industrial Hardware supply chain in 2017, the program grew to include participants from all supply chains, staff offices, and other DLA entities, from interns to senior leaders.    

If you are a DLA employee interested in being a mentor, mentee, please enroll using the following link by Sept. 29 DLA: InSPIRE Program Enrollment. For more information, or questions about InSPIRE, contact program manager Joanne Anello via email at joanne.anello@dla.mil.
#### Alex Cho et al., Appellants, v John M. Michelangeli, Respondent.

[60 NYS3d 387]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sampson, J.), entered November 23, 2015, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that neither of them sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Alex Cho, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that neither of the plaintiffs sustained a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendant submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima facie, that the alleged injuries to the plaintiff Alex Cho’s right *779shoulder and the plaintiff Jun Hyun Cho’s left knee did not constitute serious injuries under either the permanent consequential limitation of use or significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Staff v Yshua,*59 AD3d 614 [2009]).

In opposition, the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Alex Cho sustained a serious injury to his right shoulder under the permanent consequential limitation of use and significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see *Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 218-219 [2011]). However, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Jun Hyun Cho sustained a serious injury to his left knee within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) (see *II Chung Lim v Chrabaszcz,*95 AD3d 950, 951 [2012]; *McLoud v Reyes,*82 AD3d 848, 849 [2011]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by Alex Cho, but properly granted that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by Jun Hyun Cho.

Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.
#### Dorothy Chiu-Caranese et al., Appellants, v Harry De-Meo, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[769 NYS2d 729]—

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.), dated July 3, 2002, which denied their post-verdict motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 for a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The trial court acted within its discretion in permitting the medical expert of the defendant Dr. Harry DeMeo to testify that the injured plaintiffs appendix had already ruptured and that an abscess had formed before her visit to Dr. DeMeo on November 19, 1997. The record clearly establishes that the injured plaintiff had adequate notice of this theory *(see*CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]; *Cutsogeorge v Hertz Corp.,*264 AD2d 752 [1999]). Although the trial court should have allowed the plaintiffs’ expert to testify on the same issue on direct examination, the failure to do so constituted harmless error.

Further, the trial court properly admitted the testimony of two drug company representatives that, after searching their own records and causing other persons with a business duty to accurately report to them to search their records, they could find no record of Dr. DeMeo receiving samples of two prescription medications *(see*CPLR 4518; *Johnson v Lutz,*253 NY 124 [1930]; *Guth Realty v Gingold,*34 NY2d 440 [1974]; *Cruz v City of New York,*218 AD2d 546, 547 [1995]). Under the circumstances of this case, since the drug companies were not parties to the action and were disinterested as to its outcome, the trial court properly credited the witnesses’ testimony that the searches were performed in the regular course of business *(see People v Foster,*27 NY2d 47, 51-52 [1970]; *Northway Decking & Sheet Metal Corp. v Clifton Steel Corp.,*86 AD2d 944, 945 *767[1982]). Their testimony corroborated other evidence in the record that the plaintiffs lacked credibility.

The plaintiffs’ remaining contention is not properly before this Court. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.
#### People v Diaz

1st Dept: 150 AD3d 60

granted
No. 10-5294.

#### Fred Jay Jackson, Petitioner v. Ernest C. Roe, Warden.

562 U.S. 914, 131 S. Ct. 272,

178 L. Ed. 2d 179,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6846.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT
32.2














CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002










I,
William R. Walker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of hi/fn, inc. for the three months ended June 30, 2008
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of hi/fn, inc.







August
      1, 2008
            /s/
      WILLIAM R. WALKERWilliam
      R. WalkerChief
      Financial Officer