alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Agin Majeed, Appellant, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al., Respondents.

[719 NYS2d 739]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia, Jr., J.), entered December 8, 1999 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services withholding petitioner’s good time allowance.

Petitioner is serving an indeterminate prison term imposed upon his conviction of, *inter alia,*attempted rape in the first degree. In 1998, respondent Commissioner of Correctional Services affirmed a decision of the facility Time Allowance Committee which withheld 12 months of petitioner’s good time allowance based upon his refusal to participate in a sex offender program. Upon petitioner’s continued refusal to participate in a sex offender program, the Time Allowance Committee *833subsequently recommended that the remaining two years of his good time allowance be withheld. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the second determination. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner appeals.

A decision to withhold good time allowance made in accordance with the law is not subject to review (see, *Matter of Staples v Goord,*263 AD2d 943, *lv denied*94 NY2d 755). We reject petitioner’s contention that the 1998 determination to withhold 12 months of his good time allowance affected the discretionary authority of the Commissioner to consider whether to withhold additional good time allowance upon petitioner’s continued refusal to participate in a sex offender program *(see,*Correction Law § 803; 7 NYCRR 261.3 [f]; *cf., Matter of Staples v Goord, supra).*Petitioner’s procedural due process claim was waived by his failure to appear at the hearing and raise the claim *(see, Matter of Barakat v Goord,*271 AD2d 776).

Where, as here, an inmate has refused to accept adequate treatment for the behavior that resulted in the incarceration, a decision to withhold good time allowance is not irrational *(see, Matter of Burke v Goord,*273 AD2d 575, *appeal dismissed and lv denied*95 NY2d 898; *Matter of Jones v Coombe,*269 AD2d 632, *lv denied*95 NY2d 755). That petitioner failed to participate in a recommended program, rather than an assigned program, does not affect the validity of the decision to withhold good time allowance *(see, Matter of Burke v Goord, supra; Matter of Ferry v Goord,*268 AD2d 720, *lv denied*94 NY2d 763). Nor is there any merit to petitioner’s claim that his 5th Amendment rights were violated *(see, Matter of Burke v Goord, supra).*After considering all of petitioner’s arguments, we find no basis to disturb the determination.

Peters, J. P., Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
Exhibit 32.2





                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Joseph A. Orlando,  as Principal  Financial Officer of Leucadia National
Corporation - Arizona (the "Company")  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

     (1) the  accompanying  Form 10-Q report for the period ending September 30,
2003 as filed with the U.S.  Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:  November 12, 2003
                                           By:  /s/ Joseph A. Orlando
                                                --------------------------
                                                Joseph A. Orlando
                                                Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Leucadia National Corporation-Arizona and will be retained by
Leucadia National Corporation-Arizona and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Amendment No. 2 to License Agreement



 Exhibit 10.9 
 Amendment No. 2 
 to the License Agreement
between 
 Johns Hopkins University and Sangamo BioSciences, Inc. 
 This Amendment No. 2, dated July 26, 1999 (“Effective Date”) to the License Agreement dated June 29, 1995
concerning the licensing and other matters of patent properties referred to in Appendix A of the License Agreement, and in Amendment No. 1 dated June 1, 1998 (Dr. Srinivasan Chandrasegaran, Inventor) and other Patent Rights, is
entered into between Johns Hopkins University, a not-for-profit educational institution having an address at 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland (“JOHNS HOPKINS” or “JHU”) and Sangamo BioSciences, Inc., a corporation
of the State of Delaware and having a principal place of business at Point Richmond Tech Center, 501 Canal Blvd., Suite A100, Richmond, CA 94804 (“LICENSEE”). 
 This document amends the License Agreement by the following: 
  

	1.	In Article XIV, line 1, change it to read, “Any payment, notice or other communications pursuant to this Agreement shall be sufficiently made or given on the date
of mailing if sent to such party by certified first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to it at its address below or as it shall designate by written notice given to the other party: 

 In the case of JOHNS HOPKINS: 
 Nina M. Siegler, C.F.A. 
 Director, Office of Technology Transfer 
 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 
 708N Wyman Park Center 
 3400 North Charles Street 
 Baltimore, Maryland 21218-2695 
 Phone: (410) 516-8137 
 Fax: (410) 516-7811 
  

	2.	Except as expressly modified by this Amendment No. 2, the License Agreement and Amendment No. 1 shall remain in full force and effect.


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered as of the date
first written above. 
  

					
	For Sangamo BioSciences, Inc.:	 		 	
			
	 /s/ Edward O. Lanphier II
	 		 	 August 15, 1999

	Edward O. Lanphier II	 		 	Date
	President	 		 	

  

 1 









					
	For Johns Hopkins University:	 		 	
			
	 /s/ Theodore O. Poehler, Ph.D.
	 		 	 July 26, 1999

	Theodore O. Poehler, Ph.D.	 		 	Date
	Vice Provost for Research	 		 	

  

 2
Amendment No. 1 to Facility Agreement



 Exhibit 10.45 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FACILITY AGREEMENT 
 This AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO FACILITY AGREEMENT (this “Amendment No. 1”), dated as of October 22, 2008, is made by and among ZymoGenetics, Inc. and Deerfield Private Design Fund, L.P. and Deerfield Private Design International, L.P. (together
the “Original Deerfield Lenders”) and Deerfield ZG Corporation (“DZG”). 
 W I T N E S S E T
H 
 WHEREAS, the parties hereto other than DZG have entered into the Facility Agreement, dated June 26, 2008
(the “FA”); and 
 WHEREAS, the parties to this Amendment No. 1 desire to amend the FA to add
Deerfield ZG as a party thereto; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Deerfield ZG shall become a party to the FA and the definition of “Lenders” shall include the Original Deerfield Lenders and
DZG; provided, however, that for the purposes of Sections 2.11 and 5.4, the definition of “Lenders” shall not include DZG. 
 2. For the purpose of Section 3.3, DZG shall not make the representations and warranties set forth in paragraphs (a) through (g) but shall make the representations and warranties set forth in
paragraphs (h) through (k) mutatis mutandis (e.g., in paragraph (h) DZG is a corporation). 
 3. The last sentence
of Section 2.2 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: 
 “For the purpose of the first
paragraph of the Notes, each Disbursement shall be allocated 61.7% to Deerfield Private Design International, L.P. and 38.3% to Deerfield Private Design Fund, L.P.” 
 4. Except as amended hereby, the FA shall remain in full force and effect. 
 Signature page follows. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to be signed as
of the date first above written. 
  

									
	 BORROWER:
 ZYMOGENETICS, INC.
	  		  	 LENDER:
 DEERFIELD PRIVATE DESIGN FUND, L.P.

					
	 By:
	 	 /s/ James A. Johnson
	  		  	By:	 	 /s/ James Flynn

	 Name:
	 	James A. Johnson	  		  	Name:	 	James Flynn
	 Title:
	 	 Executive Vice President and
 Chief Financial Officer
	  		  	Title:	 	General Partner
	  
 LENDER:
 DEERFIELD PRIVATE DESIGN
 INTERNATIONAL, L.P.
	  		  		 	
					
	 By:
	 	 /s/ James Flynn
	  		  		 	
	 Name:
	 	James Flynn	  		  		 	
	 Title:
	 	General Partner	  		  		 	
	  
 LENDER:
 DEERFIELD ZG CORPORATION
	  		  		 	
					
	 By:
	 	 /s/ James Flynn
	  		  		 	
	Name:	 	James Flynn	  		  		 	
	 Title:
	 	General Partner
exv10w18






Exhibit 10.18



[Compellent Technologies, Inc. Letterhead]



September 29, 2008



Duston Williams



153 Fremont Avenue



Los Altos, CA 94022



Dear Duston,



On behalf of the Compellent Technologies Board of Directors and team, I am pleased to extend
this offer for you to join our Board of Directors effective October 1, 2008.



This offer includes board fees of $20,000 per year plus $5,000 per year for membership on the
Audit Committee. All fees are paid quarterly during the third month of the quarter.



In addition to the cash fees above, you will also be granted a stock option valued at $250,000
using the pricing variables of the Black-Scholes option valuation model. I currently estimate this
will approximate 35,000 shares but the exact number will be calculated as of October 1, 2008. The
exercise price will be the “Fair Market Value” of the Company’s Common Stock as determined in
accordance with the terms of the 2007 Plan, which is the closing price as reported on the NYSE Arca
on the grant date. The terms and vesting associated with these options are contained in the
Employee Stock Option Agreement which is included with this letter. The option will vest over
three years.



Duston, the entire Compellent team is excited to have you join the team! Please signify your
acceptance to this offer with your signature below and return a signed copy to Jack Judd, Chief
Financial Officer, by September 30, 2008. Congratulations!




	 	 	 
	Sincerely,

	 	Accepted by:
	 
	 	 
	/s/ Phil Soran

	 	/s/ Duston Williams
	 
	 	 
	Phil Soran

	 	Date: 9/30/08
	President & CEO
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Enclosures
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ralph V. GILCREASE, Appellant.

No. ED 106195

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: February 13, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Ellen H. Flottman, Public Defender's Office, Woodrail Centre, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

FOR RESPONDENT: Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, Daniel N. McPherson, Asst. Atty. General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*299*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Ralph V. Gilcrease appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict convicting him of three counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, two counts of second-degree statutory sodomy, one count of enticement of a child, one count of first-degree child molestation, and two counts of second-degree child molestation. We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 47 (Thursday, March 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5314]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Digestive Diseases and 
Nutrition F32 Review.
    Date: March 19, 2009.
    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Atul Sahai, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 759, 
6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 594-2242, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b7c4d6dfd6ded6f7d9ded3d3dc99d9dedf99d0d8c1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92e1f3faf3fbf3d2fcfbf6f6f9bcfcfbfabcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 5, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-5314 Filed 3-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C

C UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION
Ill 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
FEB 022012 Mr. David K. Paylor, Director Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality 629 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Mr. Paylor: On January 23, 2012, the Commonwealth

of Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) provided

a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially withdrawing portions of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by VADEQ on April 4, 2008. The submittal pertained
to the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter (PM 2 , 5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) attainment plan for the Virginia portion of the Washington DC- MD-VA nonattainment area. VADEQ requested withdrawal
of the attainment plan, including analysis of reasonably available control measures, attainment demonstration, contingency plans for failure to attain, and mobile source budgets. To address the requirements of Clean Air Act section 172(c)(3), VADEQ

is not requesting withdrawal of the portion of the submittal comprised of the 2002 base year emissions inventory. As requested, EPA is returning the April 4, 2008 submittal, with the exception of the following portions of the submittal related to the 2002 base year inventory: 1. Chapter

3 of the Attainment Plan (2002 Base Year Inventory) 2. Appendix

B (Base Year 2002 Emissions Inventory and Documentation),
and 3. The public notice and hearing documents. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Marilyn Powers, of my staff, at (215) 814-2308.
Sincerely, Diana Esher, Director Air Protection Division Enclosure C) Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, Harry Chew, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bi-Optic Ventures, Inc. (the Company) do 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 my knowledge:  1.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended May 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 results of operations of the Company.    Date:  July 10, 2008  /s/  Harry Chew Harry Chew, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer     1
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 6, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-00862-CV

DONALD BARNETTE, Appellant 

V.

MARIA ESTHER COOPER, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 308th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-51808 

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

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed June 11, 2018. Appellant 

filed a timely motion for new trial on July 11, 2018. When appellant has filed a 

timely post-judgment motion, the notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days after 

the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Appellant’s notice of 

appeal was due September 10, 2018, but was not filed until October 2, 2018. 
2

Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion for extension of 

time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of 

appeal beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but 

within the 15-day grace period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3 

for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 

617–18 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of appeal 

was not filed within the 15-day period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 26.3. 

On October 12, 2018, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). 

On October 22, 2018, appellant filed a response in which he argues that his notice 

of appeal was delayed because his motion for new trial was denied by operation of 

law on September 24, 2018. However, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal does 

not run from the date of the denial of the motion for new trial, but rather from the 

date of the signing of the judgment. See Naaman v. Grider, 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 

2003) (court dismissed an appeal as untimely because appellant filed notice of appeal 

based upon date trial court granted motion for judgment, rather than date of judgment 

itself, which had been entered four weeks earlier); see also Overka v. Bauri, No. 14-

06-00083-CV, 2006 WL 2074688, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 27, 

2006, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant’s response fails to demonstrate that this court 

has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Busby.
SECOND AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                          DISTRIBUTOR SERVICE AGREEMENT
                                     BETWEEN
                       MAINES PAPER AND FOOD SERVICE, INC.
                                       AND
                                   COSI, INC.

      Agreement made this 7th day of April, 2003, by and between Maines Paper
and Food Service, Inc. ("DISTRIBUTOR") AND Cosi, Inc. ("COMPANY").

                                    RECITALS

      The parties entered into a certain Distributor Service Agreement dated
January 7, 2002, that was subsequently amended on June 18, 2002, and desire to
amend the same to redefine the Term of the Agreement.

                                    AGREEMENT

      The parties hereto agree as follows:

The initial term of this Agreement, contained in Section 15.1 of the amended
Agreement is hereby amended as follows:

      This Agreement shall become effective as of the Effective Date (January 7,
2002) and shall expire four (4) years from the effective date (January 7, 2006),
unless otherwise terminated or extended pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

      Except as amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full
force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms, conditions and
provisions hereof, and those of the Agreement, the terms, conditions and
provisions hereof shall prevail and control.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this SECOND AMENDMENT as of
the day first above written.

                                       MAINES PAPER AND FOOD SERVICE, INC.

                                       BY:  /s/  Christopher Mellon
                                            -----------------------------

                                       TITLE:  CEO
                                               --------------------------


                                       COSI, INC.

                                       BY:    /s/ Kenneth S. Betuker
                                            -----------------------------

                                       TITLE:  CEO
                                               --------------------------
-79.0 -78.5 -78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5

38.0 38.5 39.0 39.5


### ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 05/29 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 May 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL