alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This Addendum (the  "Addendum") is made effective as of the 15th day of
December,  2000 and is intended  to amend a certain  Employment  Agreement  (the
"Agreement")  by and  between  Erie  Indemnity  Company  and  Stephen  A.  Milne
effective as of December 16, 1997.

         WHEREAS,  the Company has determined that it is in the best interest of
the Company  and its  Shareholders  to secure the  continued  employment  of the
Executive in accordance with the terms of the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS,   the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Company  has  previously
considered  and agreed to extend  the term of the  Agreement  from its  original
term; and

         WHEREAS,  the Board of  Directors  of the  Company  at its  meeting  of
December  12, 2000 has again  agreed to extend the term of the  Agreement  for a
period of one (1) additional year as contained herein; and

         WHEREAS, the Executive is agreeable to the extension of the Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties agree
         as follows:

         1.  Paragraph 1 of the Agreement with respect to the Term is hereby
amended by extending the Term to expire on December 15, 2004.

         2.  All other terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full
force and effect.

ATTEST:                                              ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY


/s/ Jan R. Van Gorder                         By:  /s/ F. William Hirt
    Jan R. Van Gorder                                  F. William Hirt
    Secretary                                          Chairman of the Board


WITNESS:

/s/ Charlotte F. Drobniewski                       /s/ Stephen A. Milne
    Charlotte F. Drobniewski                           Stephen A. Milne
    Executive Secretary                                6200 Ruhl Road
                                                       Fairview, PA   16415

                                       32
#### People v Jackson (Damion)

2d Dept: 139 AD3d 875 (Queens)

denied 8/17/16 (Abdus-Salaam, J.)
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

JOE AGUIRRE
, Appellant
,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
, Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 2 4

- 0 0108

- C R

Appeal from the

466 th District Court

o f Comal County, Texas

(TC# CR2017

- 339E )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joe Aguirre is attempting to appeal his conviction for 11 counts of possession with intent
to promote child pornography. 1 Because Aguirre does not have the right to appeal his conviction,

we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(a)(2) requires a trial court to enter its certification
of a defendant’s right of appeal each time it enters a judgment of guilt or other appealable order.

Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record before u s supports the trial court’s certification that
Appellant does not have the right to appeal his judgment and sentence ; Appellant waived his right
to a jury trial and entered a negotiated guilty plea. In a plea

- bargain case such as this , a defendant

1 This case was transferred from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant to a Supreme Court of Texas docket equalization order. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann

. § 73.001. We follow the precedent of the Third Court of A ppeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.2

may only appeal matters raised by written motion and ruled on before trial, or after acquiring the
trial court’s permission to appeal. Tedford v. State
, No. 08

- 21

- 00003

- CR, 2021 WL 717603 , at *1
(Tex. App.

— El Paso Feb. 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem . op. , not designated for publication). The record

before us does not indicate that Appellant is attempting to appeal any pretrial motions ruled upon
by the trial court. Nor does it reflect that Aguirre obtained the trial court’s permission to appeal
any i ssues. As such, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Id.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction

.

LISA J. SOTO
, Justice

May 2 4 , 2024

Before Palafox and Soto, JJ. , and Barajas, C.J., (Ret

. ) Barajas, C.J., (Ret

. ), (sitting by a ssignment ) Palafox, J. , concurring
No. 10-6705.

#### Otha Eric Townsend, Petitioner v. John King, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1034, 131 S. Ct. 577,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8683.

178 L. Ed. 2d 422,

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
#### Brian J. Boreanaz et al., Appellants, v Susan Facer-Kreidler et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[770 NYS2d 516]

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Erie County (Lane, J.), entered April 29, 2002, which granted the motion of defendant Susan Facer-Kreidler and the cross motion of defendant Ford Motor Credit Company for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by denying the motion and cross motion in part and reinstating the complaint with respect to the permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member and significant limitation of use of a body function or system categories of serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) and reinstating the derivative cause of action and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, plaintiffs appeal from an order granting the motion of defendant Susan Facer-Kreidler and the cross motion of defendant Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that Brian J. Boreanaz (plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when the vehicle that he was driving was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Facer-Kreidler and owned by Ford. We conclude that defendants did not meet their burden of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff did not sustain a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member or a significant limitation of use of a *1482body function or system, two of the four categories of serious injury alleged by plaintiffs. Defendants’ own submissions raise an issue of fact whether plaintiff’s spondylolisthesis was a preexisting condition that was exacerbated by the accident *(see Phillips v Tissotvanpatot,*280 AD2d 735, 736 [2001]; *Walsh v Kings Plaza Replacement Serv.,*239 AD2d 408, 409 [1997]). We therefore modify the order in appeal No. 1 by denying the motion and cross motion in part and reinstating the complaint with respect to those two categories of serious injury and the derivative cause of action.

We conclude in appeal No. 2 that Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to renew with respect to defendants’ motion and cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. A motion for leave to renew must be based upon new facts that were unavailable at the time of the original motion and cross motion *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; *Nelson v RPH Constr. Corp.,*278 AD2d 465 [2000]). Here, however, it is undisputed that the evidence submitted on renewal, i.e., the complete transcript of plaintiff’s deposition testimony, was inadvertently omitted by plaintiffs’ counsel in opposition to the motion and cross motion and was not previously unavailable. In any event, the court properly determined that plaintiffs deposition testimony would not change the outcome of defendants’ motion and cross motion *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner and Kehoe, JJ.
# Quarterly RAB meeting held

/ Published April 18, 2016
RICHMOND, VA, 
Community members attended the Defense Logistics Agency Installation Support at Richmond’s environmental cleanup program quarterly Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) meeting April 11 at the Bensley Community Center in Chesterfield County, Virginia.

Defense Supply Center Richmond established RAB in January 2002 to provide a forum for the community to be involved in DSCR’s environmental cleanup. 

As an advisory board, the RAB makes suggestions, recommendations, and comments on issues concerning investigations and remediation activities. It is made up of local citizens, installation representatives, business groups and personnel from the Environmental Protection Agency, Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality, and Chesterfield County. The RAB is co-chaired by a DSCR representative and a community representative.

David Gibson, site director, Defense Logistics Agency Installation Support at Richmond and Adrianne Moore, chief, Environmental Office, DLA Installation Support at Richmond, attended the meeting, which drew a crowd of close to 20 concerned citizens and RAB members.

They received updates on groundwater sampling at DSCR. This included Operable Unit 7, the groundwater impacted underneath the former fire training area and Operable Unit 8, which is the groundwater impacted by former acid neutralization pits operation.

The next meeting will be held July 11 and is open to the public.
No. 10-6732.

#### K. R. J., Petitioner v. Wayne County Juvenile Office.

562 U.S. 1070, 131 S. Ct. 662,

178 L. Ed. 2d 494,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9232.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, denied.
No. 09-1506.

#### Randall M. Jones, Petitioner v. Anheuser Busch.

562 U.S. 1086, 131 S. Ct. 688,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9061.

178 L. Ed. 2d 518,

November 29, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 837, 131 S. Ct. 164, 178 L. Ed. 2d 40, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5953.
Opinion issued June 13, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00424-CR

———————————

IN RE JB BLACK, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, J.B. Black, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus compelling the 

trial court to rule on relator’s “Memorandum and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Subject Matter Jurisdiction.”1 We deny the petition.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Rivas-Molloy.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 The underlying case is State of Texas v. J.B. Black, cause number 1629964, pending 

in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Hazel B. Jones 

presiding.
No. 10-465.

#### William Sumner Scott, Petitioner v. The Florida Bar.

562 U.S. 1030, 131 S. Ct. 581,

178 L. Ed. 2d 415,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8673.

November 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.

Same case below, 39 So. 3d 309.
# C_2013108EN.01004002.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/40

---

Action brought on 11 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-14/13)

2013/C 108/95

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Sagias, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/117/11 not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests in the absence of the professional experience required.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/117/11 not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests, a decision which was communicated to him by letter dated 18 April 2012 and subsequently confirmed, the confirmation having been communicated to him by letter dated 24 May 2012; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/117/11 not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests, a decision which was communicated to him by letter dated 18 April 2012 and subsequently confirmed, the confirmation having been communicated to him by letter dated 24 May 2012;

| — | annul the decision of 9 November 2012, rejecting the complaint brought against the decision of the selection board mentioned above; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 9 November 2012, rejecting the complaint brought against the decision of the selection board mentioned above;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
#### People v Warren (Vincent)

App Div, 1st Dept: 2016 NY Slip Op 96037(U) (Bronx)

denied 3/23/17 (Garcia, J.)
#### People v Colbert

1st Dept: 146 AD3d 565 (NY)

denied 3/13/17 (Stein, J.)
# DSCR Ergonomics Team strives to achieve OSHA star

/ Published Oct. 26, 2015
RICHMOND, Virginia, Good Working Positions.
No. 10-6875.

#### Gerardo Grajeda, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1035, 131 S. Ct. 583,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8759.

178 L. Ed. 2d 425,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 581 F.3d 1186.
Exhibit 32

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 Lexon Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending September 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kenneth J. Eaken, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

 (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 result of operations of the Company.


Date: November 14, 2003     /S/Kenneth J. Eaken
                            Principal Executive Officer
                            Principal Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement 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.
#### L.S. v. J.R.

12/07/2015

613 EAL (2015)

Denied

No. 1239 EDA 2015
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathaniel Willis, Jr, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[768 NYS2d 898]

— Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J), entered July 9, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree and attempted welfare fraud in the fifth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Same memorandum as in *People v Willis*(2 AD3d 1322 [2003]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Gorski, JJ.
# C_2013129EN.01003102.xml

| 4.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/31

---

Action brought on 11 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-15/13)

2013/C 129/58

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision to close the procedures for the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights, without a transfer.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision of 17 April 2012 to close the files on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 17 April 2012 to close the files on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                      JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                1,319,000
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           400,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                            104,000
<INVENTORY>                                               2,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      1,884,000
<PP&E>                                                1,284,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                          651,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        3,419,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   995,000
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                               6,000
<COMMON>                                                 44,000
<OTHER-SE>                                            2,374,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          3,419,000
<SALES>                                                 186,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      1,357,000
<CGS>                                                   440,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         1,620,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      4,961,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (5,100,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (5,100,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (5,100,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                               (1.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (1.17)



</TABLE>
---

EXHIBIT 13.2

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, Jeffrey R. Mason, Chief Financial Officer of Anooraq
Resources Corporation (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, to the best of my knowledge:

(i)     the Annual
  Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006
  (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

|Date:  | July 13, 2007                   
|------ | --------------------------------
|       |                                 
|       | /s/ Iemrahn Hassan              
|       | ________________________________
|By:    | Iemrahn Hassan                  
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer         

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Companys Annual Report on Form
20-F. A signed original of this statement 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.

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form
20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

---
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant to 18 United States Code § 1350,**

**as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Leonard F. Leganza, the Chief Executive Officer of The Eastern Company (the “Company”) and John L. Sullivan III, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

 

| 1) | The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 2, 2010, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2) | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 11th day of March, 2010.

 

|   | /s/ Leonard F. Leganza |
|--------|------------------------|

|   | Leonard F. Leganza |
|--------|--------------------|

|   | CEO |
|--------|-----|

 

 

|   | /s/ John L. Sullivan III |
|--------|--------------------------|

|   | John L. Sullivan III |
|--------|----------------------|

|   | CFO |
|--------|-----|

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Eastern Company and will be retained by The Eastern Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

This certification “accompanies” the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

69