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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1166

CAROL L. ORDEWALD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social

Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, District

Judge. (CA-04-32-GEC)

Submitted: October 31, 2005 Decided: December 16, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Schorsch, POINDEXTER, SCHORSCH & PATTERSON, Waynesboro,

Virginia; Charles E. Samuels, HUBARD, SAMUELS & LEWANE, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellant. Donna L. Calvert, Regional Chief Counsel,

Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Margaret M. Maguire,

Assistant Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John L.

Brownlee, United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United

States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Carol L. Ordewald appeals the district court’s order

affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance

benefits. We must uphold the decision to deny benefits if the

decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct law

was applied. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Craig v. Chater, 76

F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). 

In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal,

Ordewald’s sole argument is that, in his hypothetical to the

vocational expert, the Administrative Law Judge failed to

incorporate Ordewald’s anticipated absenteeism, a limitation to

Ordewald’s residual functional capacity noted by the medical

expert. Because this claim was not raised in the district court,

Ordewald may not raise it now on appeal. See Muth v. United

States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that issues raised

for the first time on appeal are generally waived absent

exceptional circumstances). To the extent that Ordewald raises a

general challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we conclude

that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. 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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CHARLES TALBERT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 322 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 10.24

 

Confidential Materials omitted and filed separately with the

Securities and Exchange Commission. Double asterisks denote omissions.

 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE

PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment No. 1 to the Purchase and Sale Agreement (this “Amendment”) is dated as of November 3, 2014 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) by and between Novo A/S, a company organized under the laws of Denmark with offices at Tuborg Havnevej 19, DK-2900 Hellerup, Denmark (“Novo”), and Ophthotech Corporation, a Delaware corporation with offices at One Penn Plaza, Suite 1924, New York, New York 10119 (“Ophthotech”).  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “Agreement”) made effective as of May 23, 2013 (the “Agreement Effective Date”) by and between Novo and Ophthotech. All references to Sections in this Amendment refer to Sections of the Agreement.

 

WHEREAS, on the Agreement Effective Date, Novo and Ophthotech entered into the Agreement pursuant to which Novo agreed to provide funding to Ophthotech to support further development of Ophthotech’s clinical candidate Fovista® in exchange for royalties on future sales of Fovista; and

 

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein,

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

 

1.                                      Amendment to Agreement.  The reference to “[**]” in the definition of “Third Closing Trigger” set forth on Exhibit A to the Agreement is deleted and “[**]” is hereby inserted in lieu thereof.

 

2.                                      Miscellaneous.  The Parties hereby confirm and agree that, except as amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the Parties hereto.  Without limiting the foregoing, Section 9.10 of the Agreement (Governing Law; Submission to Jurisdiction; Waiver of Jury Trial) shall apply to this Amendment.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

 











 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duty authorized representatives.

 

	
OPHTHOTECH   CORPORATION
    	
NOVO   A/S
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/   David Guyer
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   E. Kolding
    	
 
    
	
Name:   David Guyer
    	
Name:   Eiving Kolding
    
	
Title:   CEO
    	
Title:   Chief Executive Office
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
NOVO   A/S
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Thorkil K. Christensen
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Name:   Thorkil K. Christensen
    
	
 
    	
Title:   Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------

                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Denis A.  Krusos,  the  Chairman  of the Board and Chief  Executive  Officer  of
CopyTele, Inc., hereby certifies that:

          1.   The  Company's  Form 10-Q  Quarterly  Report for the period ended
               July 31, 2009 (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.


                                        /s/ Denis A. Krusos
                                          ---------------------------------
                                        Denis A. Krusos
                                        Chairman of the Board and
September 9, 2009                       Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 99.1

            STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned,
Sally A. Fonner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of The
Enchanted Village, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

       The Company's Amended Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended
       July 31, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
       Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                      /s/ Sally A Fonner
     -----------------------------------------------------
     Sally A. Fonner
     Chief Executive Officer and
     Chief Financial Officer
     Dated: May 12, 2003
**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**

|                              |                                                                         |               |
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------|
| Date:              April 17, 2007 |    INFOSEARCH              MEDIA, INC.                        |
|                         |                                                                    |          |
|                                   |                                                                              | /s/ George Lichter |
|                              | By:                George LichterIts:                Chief Executive Officer |

|                              |                                                                                           |                               |
|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Date:              April 17, 2007 |    INFOSEARCH              MEDIA, INC.                                          |
|                         |                                                                                      |                          |
|                                   |                                                                                                | /s/ Frank Knuettel              II |
|                              | By:                Frank Knuettel                IIIts:                Chief Financial Officer |

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          11,628
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,800
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     59,931
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        130,128
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 215,900
<DEPOSITS>                                     187,466
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,657
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,585
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,692
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 215,900
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,171
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,091
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   331
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,593
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,648
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,966
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,627
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      837
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (105)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    896
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         896
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       562
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.54
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.25
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,588
<LOANS-PAST>                                        12
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   861
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,402
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      883
<RECOVERIES>                                        32
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,388
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,388
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ WORLDS INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC., BLIZZARD

ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC., Defendants

- Appellees

______________________

2021

- 1990

______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 1:12

- cv

- 10576

- DJC, Judge Denise J. Casper.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

W AYNE M ICHAEL H ELGE , Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP, McLean, VA, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by A LDO N OTO , J AMES T HOMAS W ILSON

.

K EVIN S COTT P RUSSIA , Wilmer Cut ler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendants

- appellees. Also represented by S ONAL N ARESH M EHTA , J ENNIFER J ASMINE J OHN , Palo Alto, CA. Case: 21-1990 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2022______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE , Chief Judge

, C HEN and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 10, 202 2 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 21-1990 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 03/10/2022
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00234-JD-SLC document 39-1 filed 08/08/16 page 1 of 3
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00234-JD-SLC document 39-1 filed 08/08/16 page 2 of 3
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00234-JD-SLC document 39-1 filed 08/08/16 page 3 of 3
#### In the Matter of Contracting Plumbers Association of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., et al., Appellants, v New York City Housing Authority et al., Respondents.

Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (George Smith, J.), entered on or about June 19, 1984, unanimously dismissed as moot, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Bloom and Rosenberger, JJ.
2015.01.03 EX 10.13






EXHIBIT 10.13
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
FRANKLIN ELECTRIC CO., INC.
SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT AND
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


WHEREAS, Franklin Electric Co., Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Franklin Electric Co., Inc. Supplemental Retirement and Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) for designated employees; and
WHEREAS, the Company has delegated the right to amend the Plan to the Chief Financial Officer and Vice President-Global Human Resources (the “Amending Officers”) and the Amending Officers now deem it appropriate to do so.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Section 7.2 of the Plan is hereby amended, effective as of February 22, 2013, to read as follows: 
		
	“7.2
	Right to Amend.  The MOCC, the Board or its delegate may, in its sole discretion, amend this Plan and the related Deferral Agreements at any time.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amendment has been duly executed as of this 19th day of December, 2013.
FRANKLIN ELECTRIC CO.
 /s/ John J. Haines                    
John J. Haines
Chief Financial Officer


/s/ Thomas J. Strupp                    
Thomas J. Strupp
Vice President-Global Human Resources
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Bishop, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.), rendered March 28, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), attempted rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The Justice presiding at the defendant’s nonjury trial was familiar with the crime scene and surrounding area because he formerly served as an Assemblyman for that district. Initially, we note that the defendant’s claim of prejudice has not been preserved for review because he failed to request the Trial Judge to recuse himself or otherwise voice any objection during the trial (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the record is devoid of any evidence that the Trial Judge had personal knowledge of any disputed evidentiary facts material to the central issue of identification. Moreover, in the absence of any showing of prejudice, the Trial Judge is presumed, by virtue of his learning and experience, to have considered only the competent evidence in reaching his determination *(see, People v Brown,*24 NY2d 168; *People v Lombardi,*76 AD2d 891). There is no indication here that he substituted his personal knowledge of the area for the sworn testimony of the witnesses or that he relied upon certain inadmissible evidence in determining the issue of the defendant’s guilt. Therefore, recusal of the Trial Judge was not mandated. Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ERIC ANTHONY HUERTA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 19

- 30069

D.C. No. 2:11

- cr

- 00014

- DWM

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 18, 2019 **

Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Eric Anthony Huerta appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 15

- year term of supervised release imposed upon his second

revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decisio n without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 25 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 19

- 30069

Huerta argues that the 15

- year term of supervised release exceeds the

statutory maximum

. This argument lacks merit

. T he term of supervised release

authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in Huertas’s original term of

supervised release was life. S ee 18 U.S.C. § 3 583(k)

. Thus, upon revocation, the

district court could have imposed a new term of supervised release as long as life,

notwithstanding the seven months of imprisonment imposed upon Huerta’s two

revocations

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h); United States v. Crowder , 738 F.3d 1103,

1104

- 05 (9th Cir. 2013) ( district court did not err in imposing another lifetime term

of supervision upon revocation, even though it also sentenced defendant to 14

months’ imprisonment, because requirement that terms of imprisonment be

subtracted from maximum authorized supervised release term has no practical

effect when maximum supervised release term is life). Huerta attempts to

distinguish Crowder on the ground that the district court here imposed a supervised

release term of 15 years at both the original sentencing and upon the first

revocation, rather than a term of life as was ordered in Crowder . However, he

cites no authority to support this distinction, and neither Crowder nor the

applicable statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), su pports it.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000714909
<NAME> 82I.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         109,581
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,529
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               173,110
<PP&E>                                      10,327,280
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,081,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,418,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,051
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,397,639
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,418,690
<SALES>                                        316,572
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               323,447
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  252,686
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 70,761
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             70,761
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    70,761
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     8.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.56
 Alion Science and Technology Corporation  Long-Term Incentive Plan  Award Agreement
 
  Section 1  Award Opportunity
 ParticipantDate of Grant
    
    November 1, 2008Target Award AmountPerformance Cycle 1
    
    November 1, 2008 through October 31, 2009Minimum Award Amount
    
    80% of Target Award AmountMaximum Award Amount
    
    120% of Target Award AmountVesting Date of Award
    
    November 15, 2009Form of Award Payment
    
    Lump sum cash payment, with mandatory taxes withheldTime of Award Payment
    
    Within 60 days after the Vesting Date of Award
 Seventy-five percent (75%) of the Target Award Amount relates to the Sector /
Group / Department Performance Goals listed below and twenty-five percent
(25%) of the Target Award Amount relates to the Corporate Performance Goals
listed below. See Sections 2 and 3 for the specifics regarding these terms.
(if and as applicable)
 Section 2  Performance Goals
 Target AwardPerformance Goal Categories
    
    Performance Goals
    

Amount FractionA.
Performance Cycle 1 Corporate Goals:B.
Performance Cycle 1 Sector / Group / Department Goals:(if and as applicable)
  Page 1 of 4




---



##### 



Section 3  Determination of Earned Award
  have
 have not
  Section 4  Vesting and Payment of Award
  Section 5  Death or Disability During Employment
  Section 6  Involuntary Termination Without Cause
  Section 7  Involuntary Termination for Cause or Voluntary Termination
 Page 2 of 4




---



##### 



Section 8  Change in Control
  Section 9  Other Provisions
  Section 10  Forfeiture of other Awards
    Page 3 of 4




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
 COMPANY:

    

    
    
    PARTICIPANT:Alion Science and Technology CorporationA Delaware corporationBy:Name:Title:
    
    
    
    
    
    Name:
 Page 4 of 4