alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Kent JEFFRIES, Petitioner and Lynwood Hare, Frances L. Hare, Bobbie Lewis Jeffries, and Thomas Glenn Finch, Intervening Petitioners v. COUNTY OF HARNETT, Respondent and Drake Landing LLC, William Dan Andrews, and Linda Andrews, Intervening Respondents

No. 176P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

John Walter Bryant, Attorney at Law, Amber Jean Ivie, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Drake Landing LLC, et al.

Gavin B. Parsons, Attorney Advocate /GAL, for Jeffries, Kent, et al.

Monica Jackson, Attorney at Law, for County of Harnett.

***ORDER***

*711Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th of June 2018 by Intervenor Respondents in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."
(January 11, 2001)

#### Dona Kelly et al., Appellants, v Our Lady of Mercy Medical Center, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 50]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered on or about May 25, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint, in this action to recover for damages for emotional distress stemming from AIDS phobia, was properly dismissed since plaintiff, who has not tested seropositive for HIV in seven years, failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a factual issue as to whether the discarded lancet upon which she pricked herself while a patient in defendant hospital was contaminated with HIV *(see, Brown v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*225 AD2d 36, 45; *accord, Bishop v Mount Sinai Med. Ctr.,*247 AD2d 329). The evidence of plaintiff’s experts that, at the time plaintiff pricked herself upon the lancet, some 25% of patients in Bronx hospitals were HIV positive, is insufficient to raise a factual issue as to whether plaintiff was actually exposed to the virus where, as here, plaintiff’s HIV tests in the years since the incident have been consistently negative, and hospital records show that no patient on plaintiff’s floor for the month preceding the incident had been treated for either HIV or AIDS and that for seven days preceding the incident no patient in the area where plaintiff was being treated had been diagnosed with HIV or AIDS. Nor, in view of this compelling evidence establishing the absence of any real possibility that plaintiff was exposed to HIV when she stuck herself with the lancet, would an inference against defendant be warranted by the circumstance that defendant’s nurse, in what was plainly not an intentional act of evidentiary spoliation, discarded the lancet in the immediate aftermath of plaintiff’s pricking.

Finally, plaintiff’s contention, raised during oral argument, *291that defendant’s disposal of the lancet, combined with its delay in revealing the HIV status of the patients on her floor, amount to “special circumstances” providing an independent basis for a finding of negligent infliction of emotional distress, is unavailing. To the extent that plaintiff relies on the hospital’s purported six-year delay in informing her that there had been no HIV-positive patients on her floor for at least the prior month, such a claim was neither pleaded, raised below, nor adequately briefed on appeal. Moreover, the record is devoid of any verifiable indication that she had formally requested the information. Plaintiff failed to show that defendant’s delay in gathering the information as to its patients’ HIV status was unreasonable *(cf., Fosby v Albany Mem. Hosp., 252*AD2d 606).

We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Lerner, JJ.
Crystal Renee ELLENBARGER, Respondent, v. Shane Stanton BRANSTETTER, Appellant.

WD 80468

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: January 30, 2018

William E. Shull, Liberty, MO, for respondent.

Marilyn M. Shapiro, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Before Division Four: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, Presiding, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge

**ORDER**

Per curiam:

Shane Branstetter appeals from a judgment entering a full order of protection to Crystal Ellenbarger. Branstetter alleges error in the admission of an anonymous letter over his hearsay objection, and that entry of the full order of protection was against the weight of the evidence, not supported by substantial evidence, and misapplied the law. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**SECTION 906CERTIFICATION**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HireRight, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, EricJ. Boden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for purposes of 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

·                  theReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

·                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  May  7, 2008 | By:    | /s/  ERIC J. BODEN        |
|--------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                     |   | Eric  J. Boden            |
| * *                 |   | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by 18U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.*

 

----
ACE USA Officer Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.28 
 APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ACE USA OFFICERS DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, ACE INA Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”) maintains the ACE USA Officers Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), which was restated and amended effective January 1, 2009; and

 WHEREAS, the Plan permits participants who choose to defer eligible compensation to receive payments in annual installments
of up to ten years; and 
 WHEREAS, there is interest from participants and a desire on the part of the Plan administration to
permit annual installments over a longer period of time, for up to fifteen years. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, RESOLVED, 
 1. Plan section 4.1 is amended, replacing the reference to “ten years” with “fifteen years.”
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MARCUS ELBY ROGERS, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-195 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed October 31, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Pat Siracusa, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Marcus Elby Rogers, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. LaROSE, C.J., and VILLANTI and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
'; 

SERVED: September 25,2013 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD. 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013- 0046 

NOTICE 

Ira Leibowitz, Attorney-Advisor is retiring on September 30, 2013. 

All future communications should be directed to the undersigned at: 

Richard C. Goodwin, 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, Attn: Room E 11-31 0 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey, S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

(Richard. Goodwin@dot. gov) 

Administrative matters should be directed to Patricia Matthews, Staff Assistant (202) 

366-5121 (Patricia.MatthewsCa{dot.gov) 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
2 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Charles R. Barnett III, Respondent's Counsel 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Suite 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

TEL: 847-809-9520 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Jeanette B. Daubaras, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, Great Lakes Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon A venue 

Des Plaines, AL 600 18 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0046 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. ·
exv10w96






Exhibit 10.96 




     


July 27, 2009



John J. Bruggeman



Dear John,



On behalf of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. (“Cadence”), I am pleased to offer you the position of
Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer, reporting to Lip-Bu Tan, President and Chief
Executive Officer. Your compensation will include an annualized base salary of $350,000. As a
Senior Vice President, you will be eligible to earn an incentive bonus targeted at 75% of your
annualized base salary upon achievement of corporate and individual performance goals in accordance
with the terms of Cadence’s annual Executive Key Contributor Bonus Plan. In addition, you will be
issued an option to purchase 200,000 shares of Cadence Design Systems Common Stock and issued an
Incentive Stock Award of 30,000 shares of Cadence Common Stock, subject to approval of each by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.



You will also be offered a one-time hiring bonus of $40,000, subject to applicable taxes. This
bonus will be paid with your first regular payroll check. The following restrictions apply to this
bonus. If you voluntarily terminate your employment prior to 24 months following your hire date, a
portion or all of the bonus will be immediately due and payable to Cadence according to the
following schedule:




	 	 	 	 	 
	Termination date:
	 	Portion owed:
	 
	 	 	 	 
	0-12 months after start date
	 	 	100	%
	12-18 months after start date
	 	 	70	%
	18-24 months after start date
	 	 	40	%
	after 24 months
	 	 	0	%





Cadence offers a comprehensive Employee Benefits package including a 401(k) plan and a
non-qualified deferred compensation plan (“NQDC”) for executives. We also provide a wide variety
of health and welfare benefits through our cafeteria-style benefits plan. Under this plan, you
will be able to choose from several different options in each benefit area including Medical,
Dental, Vision, Life and Disability Insurance. Additional details on all these benefits can be
found in your “Benefits Year-Round User Guide” and will be discussed in depth at the New Employee
Orientation.



Please understand that Cadence is an at-will employer as described in the attached “Employment
Terms,” and that this offer is contingent upon successfully passing the Cadence background
verification and upon your execution of the Employee Proprietary Information and Inventions
Agreement.



Offers of employment remain open for a short period of time; unless otherwise notified, this offer
will expire on August 3, 2009.



John, we look forward to having you on our team!



Sincerely,



/s/ Christina Rooke Jones
 





Christina Rooke Jones

Senior Vice President, Global Human Resources
exv10w21






Exhibit 10.21




AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN HARLAND CLARKE HOLDINGS CORP.

AND CHARLES DAWSON




     WHEREAS, Harland Clarke Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation (the ‘‘Company’’), and Charles
Dawson (the ‘‘Executive’’) entered into an employment agreement (as amended, the “Employment
Agreement”) dated as of February 13, 2008;



     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to modify the term of employment set forth in the
Employment Agreement;



     NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement,
effective as of February 2, 2010, as set forth below:




	 	1.	 	Section 2.1 is hereby modified by deleting the date of December 31, 2010 and
inserting in its place the date December 31, 2013.
	 
	 	2.	 	All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall otherwise
remain in place, except as expressly amended herein.





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment to the Employment Agreement
effective as of February 2, 2010.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	HARLAND CLARKE HOLDINGS CORP.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Peter Fera
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Peter Fera 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Chief Financial Officer 	 
	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Charles Dawson
 	 
	 	 	Charles Dawson 	 
	 	 	 
	 




Page 1 of 1
STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. Norvell HARRIS, Defendant / Respondent.

No. ED 106003

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

FILED: March 13, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Susan Elizabeth Jostes, 100 S. Central Ave., Clayton, MO 63105.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: David L. Bryant, 2200 N. Hwy 67, #396, Florissant, MO 63032.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

The State of Missouri filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Section 547.200 RSMo 2000 challenging the trial court's Order granting Norvell Harris' motion to suppress evidence and statements. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
No. 09-8922.

#### Kerry L. Brown, Petitioner v. Jody Hathaway, Warden.

559 U.S. 1051, 130 S. Ct. 2347,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3087.

176 L. Ed. 2d 566,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 23

- 00236

- CR

Jennifer Polson , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 22

- 00267

- 1 , THE HONORABLE WILL WARD , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Jennifer Polson has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal. The motion is

signed by both appellant and her attorney. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). We g rant the motion and

dismiss the appeal. See id

.

__________ __ ______________________________ Gisela D. Triana , Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: October 2 6, 2023

D o Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIO-LOK INTERNATIONAL INC. FOR THE 12 MONTH PERIOD ENDED
OCTOBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,079
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  505,264
<ALLOWANCES>                                   115,256
<INVENTORY>                                  1,231,056
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,381,269
<PP&E>                                         966,694
<DEPRECIATION>                                 781,116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,870,325
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          786,052
<BONDS>                                        329,636
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,423
<OTHER-SE>                                     698,214
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,870,325
<SALES>                                      1,511,975
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,511,975
<CGS>                                          455,337
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  881,673
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2,250)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              96,841
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 80,374
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    80,374
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
 
      (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, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(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 covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial 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, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (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 other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: May 17, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Roman GregorigRoman GregorigVice President and Principal Financial Officer E-3
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udicial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: October 27, 2016 5 21958

________________________________ In the Matter of ARIEZ T., Alleged to be a Neglected Child.
SCHENECTADY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Respondent; JOHN T., Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: September 6, 2016 Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Lynch, Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________ Sandra M. Colatosti, Albany, for appellant. Kevin M. Litz, Schenectady County Department of Social Services, Schenectady, for respondent. Alexandra G. Verrigni, Rexford, attorney for the child.

__________ Lynch, J. Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Powers, J.), entered June 30, 2015, which, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 10, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the petition. Respondent is the father of a child born in December 2014. Family Court removed the child from his mother's care immediately after his birth. In April 2015, petitioner commenced this proceeding to adjudicate the child to be neglected based, in-2- 521958

part, on respondent's long history of substance abuse coupled with his admission that one month earlier, he had been admitted to the hospital after he consumed "70 beers and snorted an eight ball of cocaine." Respondent moved to dismiss the neglect petition, arguing that, without an allegation that the conduct occurred in the child's presence, there was no basis for Family Court to find that he had neglected the child. In June 2015, Family Court denied the motion, finding that petitioner established a prima facie case for neglect and permitted the proceeding to continue. Respondent now appeals. The attorney for the child advises that, during the pendency of this appeal, petitioner filed a permanent neglect petition pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, and Family Court determined that the child was abandoned (see Social Services Law § 384-b [5]). On April 26, 2016, the court terminated respondent's parental rights to the child. Under these circumstances, we agree with the attorney for the child that respondent's appeal has been rendered moot (see Matter of Mary YY. [Albert YY.], 98 AD3d 1198, 1198 [2012]; Matter of Riley SS. [Richard SS.], 90 AD3d 1179, 1179 [2011]). Although there is an exception to the mootness doctrine where a finding of neglect creates a stigma that affects future proceedings (see Matter of Bayley W. [Jaden W.], 100 AD3d 1203, 1203-1204 [2012]), here, because there was no such factual finding, the exception does not apply (see Matter of Maddock E. [Luis E.], 138 AD3d 559, 559-560 [2016]). Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.-3- 521958

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court