alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(121 App. Div. 502.)

#### BUSSING v. CITY OF MT. VERNON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 11, 1907.)

1. Municipal Corporations—Improvements—Sufficiency op Council’s Vote.

Though a city’s charter requires “a unanimous vote” of all the members of the council to authorize a street improvement, an improvement proceeding and an assessment were not void because there was a unanimous vote of only eight members, all that were present; the whole number being ten.

2. Courts—Previous Decision as Controlling.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court having decided that a street improvement assessment was not void because the improvement was authorized by a unanimous vote of only eight members of the council, all that were present, the whole number being ten, a referee, in a subsequent case relating to the same assessment, should have followed the decision.

Appeal from Judgment on Report of Referee.

Action by John Bussing, Jr., against the city of Mt. Vernon. From a judgment entered on a referee’s report, defendant appeals. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.

Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.

David Swits, for appellant.

Milo J. White, for respondent.

*196PER CURIAM.

The judgment vacates an assessment on the plaintiff’s property for the opening of a street in the city of Mt. Vernon, the defendant, on the ground that, whereas, the charter of the city required “a unanimous vote” of all of the members of the common council to allow the improvement, there was a unanimous vote of only eight of such members, all that were present; the whole number being ten. That this did not make the proceeding and the assessment void was decided and affirmed in this court. Matter of the Application of the City of Mt. Vernon, etc., 34 Misc. Rep. 225, 68 N. Y. Supp. 823; 64 App. Div. 619, 72 N. Y. Supp. 1097.

Nevertheless another justice thereafter, in case of lone of the landowners assessed, decided to the contrary, and no appeal was taken from this judgment by the city. This was all irregular. Our decision should have been followed. The learned referee in the present case felt constrained to follow this later decision; but he was under no such constraint. He should have followed our decision. We also deem it strange that, when the appeal was before us in the matter of the writ of mandamus to compel the cancellation of the assessment in accordance with this later judgment (People ex rel. Jardine v. Brush, 115 App. Div. 688,101 N. Y. Supp. 312), we were not informed that the proceeding and assessments were the same that we had formerly upheld in the said case first tried. The square decision there given in favor of the city should not be permitted to be frittered away.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

____________________________________ 

: 

ABU WA’EL (JIHAD) DHIAB, : 

 : 

 Petitioner, : 

 : 

 v. : 

 : 

BARACK H. OBAMA, et. al., : Civil Action No. 05-1457 (GK) 

 : 

 Respondents. : 

______________________________: 

ORDER 

 During a lengthy bench conference at the status hearing 

held on May 21, 2014, the Court strongly suggested that the 

Parties come to a compromise about the procedures used to 

enterally feed Petitioner Dhiab during the pendency of his 

Application for Preliminary Injunction. Mr. Dhiab’s physical 

condition was swiftly deteriorating, in large part because he 

was refusing food and/or water. 

 Mr. Dhiab has indicated his willingness to be enterally 

fed, if it could be done at the hospital in Guantánamo Bay, if 

he could be spared the agony of having the feeding tubes 

inserted and removed for each feeding, and if he could be spared 

the pain and discomfort of the restraint chair. 

 If he could have been enterally fed in that manner, it 

would have then been possible to litigate his plea to enjoin 

certain practices used in his force feedings in a civilized and 
–2– 

legally appropriate manner. The Department of Defense refused to 

make these compromises. 

 The Court is now faced with an anguishing Hobson’s choice: 

reissue another Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) despite the 

very real probability that Mr. Dhiab will die, because he has 

indicated a continuing desire to refuse to eat and/or drink 

liquids, or refuse to issue the TRO and allow the medical 

personnel on the scene to take the medical actions to keep Mr. 

Dhiab alive, but at the possible cost of great pain and 

suffering. 

The Court is in no position to make the complex medical 

decisions necessary to keep Mr. Dhiab alive. Thanks to the 

intransigence of the Department of Defense, Mr. Dhiab may well 

suffer unnecessary pain from certain enteral feeding practices 

and forcible cell extractions. However, the Court simply cannot 

let Mr. Dhiab die. 

The Court does, however, remind all personnel that they 

should abide by their own Standard Operating Protocols, and that 

the standard for enteral feeding is whether Mr. Dhiab is 

actually facing an “imminent risk of death or great bodily 

injury.” 

 Moreover, in an effort to ensure that any suffering by Mr. 

Dhiab is not prolonged, the Court will issue a scheduling order 
–3– 

tomorrow to facilitate the speedy exchange of discovery such 

that the Court can reach the merits of Mr. Dhiab’s Application. 

 For all the reasons above, and based on the entire record 

herein, it is hereby 

ORDERED, that the Temporary Restraining Order in this case 

will not be reissued. 

 /s/_________________________ 

May 22, 2014 Gladys Kessler 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

Copies to: attorneys on record via ECF
Exhibit 99.1





FLOW INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER





I, Ronald W. Tarrant, 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 of Flow International Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Flow International Corporation.





By:

/s/    RONALD W. TARRANTRonald W. Tarrant Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)





I, Michael R. OBrien, 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 of Flow International Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Flow International Corporation.





By:

/s/    MICHAEL R. OBRIENMichael R. OBrien Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### In the Matter of Jean Reck, Respondent, v Robert J. McGuire, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II, et al., Appellants.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Ascione, J.), entered on February 27, 1984, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, for the reasons stated by Ascione, J., at Special Term. *(See also, Becker v Huss Co.,*43 NY2d 527.) Concur — Sandler, J. P., Asch, Bloom and Kassal, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Corey Michael LEFTWICH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-6070.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 27, 2006.

Decided: May 5, 2006.

*331Corey Michael Leftwich, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Corey Michael Leftwich seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely filed and denying his subsequent Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Left-wich has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 10.25


SECOND
AMENDMENT TO THE


 CHS 401(K) SUPPLEMENTAL SAVINGS PLAN


October 1, 2003


WHEREAS, CHS/Community Health
Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) has previously established and currently
maintains the CHS 401(k) Supplemental Savings Plan (the “Plan”); and


WHEREAS, the Company desires to
further amend the Plan to change the participant contributions based on the
participant’s entry date, effective as of October 1, 2003; and


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of
the Company has approved of such amendment;


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:


1.             Section 4.B. of the
Plan is amended to read as follows:


Participant Contributions to Accounts.  For each Plan Year, each Participant may
elect to defer Compensation that would have been received in the Plan Year, but
for the deferral election, up to a maximum deferral of 6% of Compensation, less
the maximum percentage or other portion of the Participant’s Compensation that
could be deferred by the Participant for such Plan Year under the Retirement Plan.  For Participant’s who commence participation
in the Plan after the first quarter of a Plan Year and on or after October 1,
2003, the deferral percentage shall be reduced proportionately based on the
number of calendar quarters during which the Participant participates in the
Plan.


2.             The changes made by
this Second Amendment to the Plan shall be effective October 1, 2003.

















 


Effective as of October 1, 2003.


	
  CHS/COMMUNITY
  HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

  
	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
  Title:
SCWC-22-0000499

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I

STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ALEXANDER AQUINO, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-22-0000499; CASE NO. 3CPC-21-0000757)

ORDER OF CORRECTION (By: Eddins, J.)

It is ordered that the Opinion of the Court, filed on June 28, 2024, is corrected as follows: On page 2, line 12, the word “subjected” is corrected to read “exposed.” The Clerk of the Court is directed to take all necessary steps to notify the publishing agencies of this change. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, June 28, 2024.

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

Associate Justice Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-22-0000499 28-JUN-2024 01:39 PM Dkt. 23 OCOR
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Ex parte Luis Gustavo Ventura Gil

No. 06

- 24

- 00011

- CR Appeal from the County Court of Kinney County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 12027CR ). Panel consists of Chief Justice Stevens and
J ustices van Cleef and Rambin. Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Rambin

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the State to dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we vacate the trial court ’ s denial of Appellant’s
pretrial writ of habeas corpus issued on January 9 , 2024, and dis miss th is appeal

. W e note that the appellant has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal.
Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MARCH 22, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350


(SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)





I,
Patrick J. Callan, Jr., do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based upon a
review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2010 of One Liberty Properties, Inc. (“the Registrant”), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"):





(1)  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
Registrant.





Date:  May
      7, 2010
                /s/ Patrick J. Callan,
      Jr.Patrick
      J. Callan, Jr.President
      andChief
      Executive Officer
Chairman of the Board of Directors Jelena McWilliams

Biography 

Jelena McWilliams was sworn in as the 21st Chairman of the FDIC on 

June 5, 2018. She serves a six-year term on the FDIC Board of Directors, 

and is designated as Chairman for a term of five years.

Ms. McWilliams was Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer, and 

Corporate Secretary for Fifth Third Bank in Cincinnati, Ohio. At Fifth 

Third Bank she served as a member of the executive management team 

and numerous bank committees including: Management Compliance, 

Enterprise Risk, Risk and Compliance, Operational Risk, Enterprise 

Marketing, and Regulatory Change. 

Prior to joining Fifth Third Bank, Ms. McWilliams worked in the U.S. Senate for six years, most 

recently as Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director with the Senate Committee on Banking, 

Housing and Urban Affairs, and previously as Assistant Chief Counsel with the Senate Small 

Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. 

From 2007 to 2010, Ms. McWilliams served as an attorney at the Federal Reserve Board of 

Governors, where she drafted consumer protection regulations, reviewed and analyzed comment 

letters on regulatory proposals, and responded to consumer complaints. 

Before entering public service, she practiced corporate and securities law at Morrison & Foerster 

LLP in Palo Alto, California, and Hogan & Hartson LLP (now Hogan Lovells LLP) in 

Washington, D.C. In legal practice, Ms. McWilliams advised management and boards of 

directors on corporate governance, compliance, and reporting requirements under the Securities 

Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. She also represented publicly- and 

privately-held companies in mergers and acquisitions, securities offerings, strategic business 

ventures, venture capital investments, and general corporate matters.

Ms. McWilliams graduated with highest honors from the University of California at Berkeley 

with a B.S. in political science, and earned her law degree from U.C. Berkeley School of Law.
Ryan McFADYEN, et al., petitioners, v. CITY OF DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, et al.

No. 12-1460.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 12, 2013.

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

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EX-10.19.1



 Exhibit 10.19.1 

AMENDMENT TO THE 
 PEPCO
HOLDINGS, INC. 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED ANNUAL 

EXECUTIVE INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN 

This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Pepco Holdings, Inc. Amended and Restated Annual Executive Incentive Compensation
Plan (the “Plan”) is made by PEPCO HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), effective as of the closing of the merger with Exelon Corporation (the “Amendment Effective Date”).
Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan. 
 WHEREAS, the Plan
was originally established by the Company and approved by the stockholders of the Company effective as of May 18, 2012; and 

WHEREAS, Section 21 of the Plan provides that the Board may amend the Plan at any time, subject to certain exceptions; and 

WHEREAS, the Company has entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated July 18, 2014 (the
“Merger Agreement”), by and among the Company, Exelon Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation (“Exelon”), and Purple Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon
(“Merger Sub”), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company, (the “Merger”), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon, which was approved by the stockholders
of the Company at a special meeting held on September 23, 2014; and 
 WHEREAS, Section 6.9(d) of the Merger Agreement sets
forth provisions regarding the settlement of award opportunities under the Plan that are outstanding as of the effective time of the Merger (collectively, the “Outstanding Award Opportunities”); and 

WHEREAS, the Compensation/Human Resources Committee of the Board has recommended, and the Board has determined, that it is in the best
interests of the Company to amend the Plan to give effect to the provisions of Section 6.9(d) of the Merger Agreement. 
 NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, pursuant to Section 21 of the Plan, the provisions of the Plan and each Outstanding Award Opportunity are hereby deemed amended to the extent required to permit each such Outstanding Award Opportunity to be
determined and paid in accordance with the terms set forth in Section 6.9(d) of the Merger Agreement; and be it 
 FURTHER RESOLVED,
that effective as of the Amendment Effective Date, each reference in the Plan to “this Plan”, “hereunder”, “hereof” or words of like import referring to the Plan, shall mean and be a reference to the Plan, as
amended by this Second Amendment. 







 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed this 26th day of
February, 2015. 
  

									
	ATTEST:				Pepco Holdings, Inc.
					
	By:		 /s/ JANE K. STORERO
				By:		 /s/ JOSEPH M. RIGBY

			Jane K. Storero						Joseph M. Rigby
			Secretary						 Chairman of the Board, President
 and Chief
Executive Officer



  
 -2-
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2081 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2081

            To extend the duty suspension on difenoconazole.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2005

  Mr. Coble introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            To extend the duty suspension on difenoconazole.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DIFENOCONAZOLE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.12 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to difenoconazole) is amended 
by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

SUSAN CHIAPPETTA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO: 2:15-cv-00462-JVB-JEM

)

NISOURCE, INC., d/b/a NORTHERN )

INDIANA PUBLIC SERVICE CO., )

)

Defendant. )

JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

The parties, by respective counsel, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice. The parties shall bear

her/its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendant

s/ Eric J. Hartz /s/ Alan L. McLaughlin (by permission) 

John H. Haskin (7576-49) Alan L. McLaughlin (10182-49)

Eric J. Hartz (29676-49) Whitney A. Caldwell (47084)

JOHN H. HASKIN & ASSOCIATES LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 

255 North Alabama Street, 2nd Floor 111 Monument Circle, Suite 702

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Indianapolis, IN 46204

Telephone: (317) 955-9500 Telephone: (317) 287-3600

USDC IN/ND case 2:15-cv-00462-JVB-JEM document 28 filed 06/15/17 page 1 of 1
In the Matter of Disbarment of George Z. PAPPAS.

No. D-2701.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Disbarment order entered.