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



Exhibit 10.2.1 STATE OF TEXAS
    
    HHSC Contract No. 529-03-036-MCOUNTY OF TRAVIS
 AMENDMENT 13
TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION
AND
AMERIGROUP TEXAS, INC.
FOR HEALTH SERVICES
TO THE
MEDICAID STAR PROGRAM
IN THE TARRANT SERVICE DELIVERY AREA THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT (the Amendment) is entered into between the
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION (HHSC), an administrative agency within
the executive department of the State of Texas, and AMERIGROUP Texas, Inc
(HMO), a health maintenance organization organized under the laws of the
State of Texas, possessing a certificate of authority issued by the Texas
Department of Insurance to operate as a health maintenance organization, and
having its principal office at 1200 E. Copeland Road, Suite 200, Arlington, TX,
76011. HHSC and CONTRACTOR may be referred to in this Amendment individually as
a Party and collectively as the Parties. The Parties hereby agree to amend their Agreement as set forth in
Article 2 of this Amendment. ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE. Section 1.01Authorization. This Amendment is executed by the Parties in accordance with Article 15.2 of
the Agreement. Section 1.02Effective date. The effective date of this amendment is March 1, 2004. ARTICLE 2. AMENDMENT TO THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES Section 2.01Modification of Appendix C, Value-added Services Appendix C of the Contract is modified to revise the value-added services
provided by the HMO on or after March 1, 2004 as follows: Delete all Behavioral Health Value-added Services for Members Over
The revised Appendix C is attached to this amendment and incorporated by reference into the Contract. HHSC Contract
    
    Page 1 of 2
    
    December 12, 2003




---



##### 



ARTICLE 3. REPRESENTATIONS AND AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES The Parties contract and agree that the terms of the Agreement will remain
in effect and continue to govern except to the extent modified in this
Amendment. By signing this Amendment, the Parties expressly understand and agree that
this Amendment is hereby made a part of the Agreement as though it were set out
word for word in the Agreement. IN WITNESS HEREOF, HHSC and the CONTRACTOR have each caused this Amendment
to be signed and delivered by its duly authorized representative. AMERIGROUP TEXAS, INC.
    
    HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSIONBy:
    
    /s/ Jim D. Donovan, Jr.
    
    By:Jim D. Donovan, Jr.
    
    
    
    Albert HawkinsPresident and CEO
    
    
    
    Executive CommissionerDate:
    
    12/29/2003
    
    Date:
 HHSC Contract
    
    Page 2 of 2
    
    December 12, 2003
#### Com. v. Eberly 6

05/10/2016

55 MAL (2016)

6

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

Denied

Pa.Super., 135 A.3d 666
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Murphy, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 552]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Mullings, J.), imposed July 29, 2013, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Ellis,*146 AD3d 806 [2017]; *People v Bruzzo,*136 AD3d 1050 [2016]; *People v Quezada,*122 AD3d 948 [2014]; *People v Angelis,*94 AD3d 902 [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]).

Eng, P.J., Dillon, Sgroi, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
# Lack of sight doesn’t mean lack of vision

/ Published Oct. 19, 2015
COLUMBUS, Ohio,
No. 10-5823.

#### Alberta Hubbard, Petitioner v. Detroit Public Schools.

562 U.S. 968, 131 S. Ct. 470,

178 L. Ed. 2d 299,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8120,

October 12, 2010.

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

Same case below, 372 Fed. Appx. 631.
#### Com. v. Zaffino

08/03/2016

102 MAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 485
No. 10-6109.

#### Harold Dean Dupree, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 945, 131 S. Ct. 371,

178 L. Ed. 2d 239,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7593.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 590.
#### In the Matter of Kyrie Teel, Appellant, v Derrick Minus, Respondent.

[59 NYS3d 99]—

Appeal by the mother from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Alexandra Byun, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated March 29, 2016. The order, after a hearing, denied the mother’s petition for permission to relocate with the parties’ child to New Jersey.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother and the father, who never married each other, have one child together, born in 2010, and they both resided, separately, in Staten Island. The mother had residential custody of the child, and the father had mid-week and weekend visitation. In January 2014, the mother filed a petition for permission to relocate with the child from Staten Island to New Jersey. After a hearing, the Family Court denied the mother’s petition. The mother appeals.

“A parent seeking leave to relocate with a child bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed move would be in the child’s best interests” *(Matter of Caruso v Cruz,*114 AD3d 769, 771 [2014]; *see Matter of Ventura v Huggins,*141 AD3d 600, 601 [2016]; *Matter of Francis-Miller v Miller,*111 AD3d 632, 635 [2013]). In determining whether a proposed move is in a child’s best interests, courts are “free to consider and give appropriate weight to all of the factors that may be relevant to the determination” *(Matter of Tropea v Tropea,*87 NY2d 727, 740 [1996]; *see Matter of Hall v Hall,*118 AD3d 879, 880 [2014]). These factors include, but are not limited to, “each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent’s and child’s life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements” *(Matter of Tropea v Tropea,*87 NY2d at 740-741; *see Matter of Ventura v Huggins,*141 AD3d at 600; *Matter of Hall v Hall,*118 AD3d at 880-881). The court’s determination as to the relocation of a child must be supported by a sound and *706substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Caruso v Cruz,*114 AD3d at 771-772).

Here, the Family Court’s determination to deny the mother’s petition for permission to relocate is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see Matter of Francis-Miller v Miller,*111 AD3d at 635; *cf. Matter of Caruso v Cruz,*114 AD3d at 772; *Matter of Hamed v Hamed,*88 AD3d 791, 792 [2011]). The record demonstrated that not only would relocation have a negative impact on the relationship between the child and the father, but the child’s life would not be meaningfully enhanced economically, emotionally, or educationally by the move *(see Matter of Tropea v Tropea,*87 NY2d at 740; *Matter of Ventura v Huggins,*141 AD3d at 601).

Hall, J.P., Roman, Cohen and Bar-ros, JJ., concur.
No. 10-6592.

#### Martise Nunnery, Petitioner v. Illinois.

562 U.S. 1033, 131 S. Ct. 576,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8719.

178 L. Ed. 2d 421,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 395 Ill. App. 3d 1117, 369 Ill. Dec. 493, 986 N.E.2d 806.
AGREEMENT AMENDING 20% SUBORDINATED NOTE



  
 Exhibit 10.8

  
 THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective
as of the 30th day of March 2004, by and between Quantum Value Partners, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, of 33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy, Ste. 240, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 (“QVP”), and Veri-Tek International Corp., of Pontiac Trail,
Wixom, MI 48335 (“Veri-Tek”). 
  
 W I T N E S S E T H
: 
  
 WHEREAS, on or about October 31, 2003, Veri-Tek executed
a subordinated note with QVP, as Holder, whereby Veri-Tek promised to pay to Holder the principal sum of Five Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,900,000) (the “Note”); 
  
 WHEREAS, 8% of the interest of the Note is currently paid by Veri-Tek in cash on a quarterly basis, and 12% of the interest
is accrued quarterly and added to the principal sum under the Note; 
  
 WHEREAS, Veri-Tek has requested that QVP amend the Note to waive the cash interest payments and accrue all interest payments quarterly and add such interest payments to the principal; and 
  
 WHEREAS, QVP has agreed to accommodate the request of Veri-Tek. 

 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, QVP and Veri-Tek agree
that the Note shall be amended as follows: 
  
 1. Effective as of
March 30, 2004, Veri-Tek shall not be required to make the cash interest payments under the Note as such interest payments becomes due. 
  
 2. Veri-Tek and QVP agree that the waiver of the cash interest payment is not a waiver of any of QVP’s rights under the Note or a foregiveness of the
unpaid interest. 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this is hereby executed
by the undersigned as of the day and year first above written. 
  

									
	 VERI-TEK INTERNATIONAL, CORP.,
 a Michigan corporation
	 	 	 	 QUANTUM VALUE PARTNERS, LP
 a Delaware limited partnership

					
	 	 	 /s/ David V. Harper
	 	 	 	 	 	 /s/ Michael C. Azar

	 By:
	 	 David V. Harper
	 	 	 	 By:
	 	 Michael C. Azar

	 Its:
	 	 VP and CFO
	 	 	 	 	 	The Managing Member of Quantum Value Management, LLC, the General Partner
Exhibit 32.1

                            Certification pursuant to
                             18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                             as adopted pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Richard P.  McStravick,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and Anthony J.
Fabiano,  Senior Vice  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of Sound Federal
Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company"), each certify in his capacity as an officer of the
Company that he has reviewed  the  Quarterly  Report of the Company on Form 10-Q
for the  quarterly  period  ended  June  30,  2005  and  that to the best of his
knowledge:

      (1)   the report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Sections 13(a)
            and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   the  information  contained in the report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Sound  Federal  Bancorp,  Inc. and will be retained by Sound Federal
Bancorp,  Inc. and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.

August 8, 2005                             /s/ Richard P. McStravick
--------------                             -------------------------------------
Date                                       President and Chief Executive Officer

August 8, 2005                             /s/ Anthony J. Fabiano
--------------                             -------------------------------------
Date                                       Senior Vice President and Chief
                                           Financial Officer
No. 09-10985.

#### Jose Lopez, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 981, 131 S. Ct. 413,

178 L. Ed. 2d 322,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8186.

October 18, 2010.

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

Same case below, 590 F.3d 1238.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 02

- 00385

- CV

Ruth Ann Beck, Appellant

v.

Gary G. Beck, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

, 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. FM007412 , HONORABLE W. JEANNE MEURER, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Ruth Ann Beck has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal. This Court

previously dismissed the appeal of Gary G. Beck on his motion.

The appeal is dismissed in whole on motion of appellant. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2).

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before: Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed on Appellant

=

s Motion

Filed: October 3, 2002

Do Not Publish
#### Security Pacific National Bank, Respondent, v Tracie Evans, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[49 NYS3d 122]

*466Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered April 14, 2015, which, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion to strike defendant Trade Evans’s jury demand, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly determined that defendant has no right to a jury trial on the triable issues identified by this Court on a prior appeal (62 AD3d 512, 514 [1st Dept 2009]). Since both parties sought equitable relief — that is, specific performance of their settlement agreement or injunctive relief — defendant is not entitled to a jury trial (see *Anesthesia Assoc. of Mount Kisco, LLP v Northern Westchester Hosp.*Ctr., 59 AD3d 481, 482 [2d Dept 2009]; *Trepuk v Frank,*104 AD2d 780, 781 [1st Dept 1984]; CPLR 4101, 4102 [c]). Even if defendant now asserts a claim for money damages, and even if she were to withdraw her equitable claims, that would not revive or create a right to a trial by jury that was waived by asserting equitable claims with respect to the same transaction *(see Zimmer-Masiello, Inc. v Zimmer, Inc.,*164 AD2d 845, 846-847 [1st Dept 1990]; *Trepuk,*104 AD2d 780; *cf.*CPLR 4102 [c]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz and Kahn, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35603-35604]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17320]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration


Center for Veterinary Medicine; Change of Internet Address

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a change 
in the Internet address for the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) to 
ensure that users can continue to have uninterrupted access to CVM's 
Internet site. The CVM Internet site is one of the agency's methods of 
communicating with the public regarding the ongoing mission of CVM, 
which is the organization within the agency that regulates the 
manufacture and distribution of animal drugs, feeds, and related 
products.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerome J. McDonald, Center for 
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-16), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 
Standish

[[Page 35604]]

Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-827-6505.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 17, 1998, CVM changed its Internet 
address to ``www.fda.gov/cvm''. If users enter the old CVM internet 
address (``www.cvm.fda.gov''), a message will notify them of the change 
and will automatically redirect them to the new address. The message 
redirecting users to the new Internet site (redirect) will be in effect 
for approximately 3 months. CVM recommends that users who have 
bookmarked pages within the CVM website (e.g., What's New, the On-line 
Library, CVM's telephone directory, etc.) update the bookmarks with the 
new CVM Internet address. If users do not update the bookmarks, an 
error message will result and no redirect instructions will be 
provided.

    Dated: June 17, 1998.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 98-17320 Filed 6-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
#### People v Coleman

1st Dept: 139 AD3d 544 (NY)

denied 8/31/16 (Garcia, J.)
1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, UnitedStates District Judge for the District

of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-1062

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota Tory Collins, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 18, 2000 Filed: March 1, 2000

___________ Before McMILLIAN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Tory Collins appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the District of Minnesota sentencing him following his guilty plea to a felon-inpossession charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). For reversal, appellant argues the district court erred in denying his motions for downward departure under U.S.S.G. §§ 5K2.16, p.s., 4A1.3, p.s., and 5K2.0, p.s. Upon careful review of the record, we-2-

conclude that the district court was aware of its authority to depart under the provisions, but, in its discretion, determined that the circumstances did not warrant departure. Thus, the decision is unreviewable. See UnitedStates v. Correa , 167 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir. 1999) (district court & s denial of downward departure unreviewable where court considered arguments put forth by defense, found no extraordinary circumstances warranting departure, and did not indicate it lacked authority to depart). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 10-5335.

#### Connie Marshall, Petitioner v. David Huber, et al.

562 U.S. 916, 131 S. Ct. 278,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6953.

178 L. Ed. 2d 183,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Amendment to Employment Agreement between Allin Corp. and Richard W.Talarico


 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of the eighth day of December, 2004 by and between Allin Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (“Employer”), and Richard W. Talarico (“Employee”), a resident of Pennsylvania. 
  
 WHEREAS, Employer and Employee entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated as of January 10, 2002, effective as of January 1, 2001 (the “Employment
Agreement”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, Employer and Employee desire to amend that
Agreement by mutual consent. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual
promises and agreements herein contained and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree as follows: 
  
 Section 3(h) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety. 
  
 In all other respects, the terms and conditions of the Agreement are ratified and confirmed. 
  

					
	 	 	 Allin Corporation

			
	 /s/ Richard W. Talarico

	 	 By:
	 	 /s/ Dean C. Praskach


	 Richard W. Talarico
	 	 	 	 Dean C. Praskach

	 	 	 	 	 Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Victor M.N. III, Appellant, v Norma G.C., Respondent.

[61 NYS3d 900]

Appeal from order, Family Court, Bronx County (Annette Louise Guarino, Ref.), entered on or about August 30, 2016, which modified a visitation order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, and assigned counsel’s motion to withdraw granted.

We have reviewed the record and agree with assigned counsel that there are no viable arguments to be raised on appeal *(Matter of Weems v Administration for Children’s Servs.,*73 AD3d 617 [1st Dept 2010]). The parties’ child has turned 18 and thus is no longer subject to Family Court’s visitation order *(see*Family Ct Act § 651 [b]; *Matter of Lozada v Pinto,*7 AD3d 801 [2d Dept 2004]).

Concur — Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
# C_2021242EN.01004501.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/45

---

Order of the General Court of 20 April 2021 — Inclusion Alliance for Europe v Commission

(Case T-539/13 RENV) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - MARE, Senior and ECRN projects - Commission decision to recover sums unduly paid - Applicant which has stopped responding to the Court’s requests - No need to adjudicate)

(2021/C 242/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE (Bucharest, Romania)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Moro, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 4693 final of 17 July 2013 concerning the recovery from the applicant of the total sum of EUR 212 411,89, plus interest, that had been paid to it in the context of the MARE, Senior and ECRN projects, and, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, seeking compensation for the material and non-material harm which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The European Commission and Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE shall bear their own costs relating to the proceedings in Cases T-539/13, C-378/16 P-R, C-378/16 P and T-539/13 RENV. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission and Inclusion Alliance for Europe GEIE shall bear their own costs relating to the proceedings in Cases T-539/13, C-378/16 P-R, C-378/16 P and T-539/13 RENV.

---

(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.

---
# Two of Troop Support’s ‘best and brightest’ earn NCO of the quarter

/ Published Aug. 13, 2015
PHILADELPHIA,
No. 10-5825.

#### Raynard Vallery, Petitioner v. Michael A. Smelosky, Warden.

562 U.S. 968, 131 S. Ct. 471,

178 L. Ed. 2d 299,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8097.

October 12, 2010.

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