alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Respondent, v Carlos Hornes, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 129]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), entered February 10, 2011, as denied those branches of his motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court entered March 4, 2009, upon his default in answering or appearing.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale. Although the defendant alleged that he was not served with process in the instant action, it is undisputed that he filed for bankruptcy and received a discharge after the entry of the judgment of foreclosure and sale. Since the defendant received a favorable result in bankruptcy court, i.e., a discharge from personal liability *(see Nelson, L.P. v Jannace,*87 AD3d 731 [2011]; *Matter of Acquisitions Plus, LLC v Shapiro,*7 AD3d 957 [2004]), to the detriment of the plaintiff, he is judicially estopped from seeking the vacatur of the judgment of foreclosure and sale based upon lack of jurisdiction *(see All Terrain Props. v Hoy,*265 AD2d 87 [2000]; *see also MJD Constr. v Woodstock Lawn & Home Maintenance,*293 AD2d 516 [2002]; *D & L Holdings v Goldman Co.,*287 AD2d 65 [2001]).

The Supreme Court also properly denied those branches of the defendant’s motion which were to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (1), since he failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his default *(see Stephan B. Gleich & Assoc. v Gritsipis,*87 AD3d 216 [2011]), and pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3), since he failed to establish that the plaintiff procured the judgment of foreclosure and sale by fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct *(see Midfirst Bank v Al-Rahman,*81 AD3d 797 [2011]; *Tribeca Lending Corp. v Crawford,*79 AD3d 1018 [2010]). Balkin, J.P., Eng, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**     I, Vincent E. Estrada, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the registrant, Visicu, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the periodin which this annual report is being prepared;          (b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];          (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation;and          (d) disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal year that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Dated: March 13, 2007 By: /s/ Vincent E. Estrada       Vincent E. Estrada      Senior Vice President and      Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

              SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                            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 annual report (the "Report") of TCI Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Stephen
P. DeSantis, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 results of operations of the Company.



Date: April 15, 2005                     By:  /s/ Stephen P. DeSantis
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Stephen P. DeSantis
                                              Executive Vice President,
                                              Chief Financial Officer and
                                              Corporate Secretary
DONA L. MCKEEHAN

,

Appellant,

v.

MATTHEW C. MCKEEHAN

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4918

____ _________________________/

Opinion filed May 3, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County

. David Rimmer , Judge

.

Ross A. Keene, Pensacola , for Appellant.

Gregory D. Smith, Pensacola , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROW E, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### WELCH, Respondent, v. FRONTIER FILE CO. et al., Appellants

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 6, 1912.)

Action by Margaret F. Welch against the Frontier File Company and others. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### STARR, Appellant, v. AVERETT et al., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 20, 1913.)

Action by Samuel Starr against Abraham M. Averett and others. W. M. Geer, Jr., of New York City, for appellant. A. S. Weltfisch, of New York City, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Or-der filed,
[No. 16076-9-III.

Division Three.

August 19, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. Brian K. Dumont, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Chelan County, No. 93-1-00018-0, Ted W. Small, J., entered August 12, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Thompson, J., concurred in by Brown, J., and Hutton, J. Pro Tern.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 2375

JAMES ELLIS HALL, II , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O’Grady , District Judge. ( 1:18

- cv - 01080

- LO

- TCB )

Submitted : February 2 1 , 2019 Decided: February 25, 2019

Befo re GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges

.

Dismissed and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. James Ellis Hall, II, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Frederick Nieman, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Reston, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding prece dent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
James Ellis Hall, II, appeal s the district court’s order granting Verizon Communications, Inc.’s (Verizon) motion to dismiss Hall’s complaint alleging Verizon violated his First Amendment rights when it terminated Hall a fter he published an article criticizing the company. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficia l Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). Because it is possible that Hall could cure the defects in his complaint through amendment, the order he seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See G oode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y , 807 F.3d 619,
623

- 25, 628

- 30 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Hall to file an amended complaint. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED AND REMANDED
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00334-SLC document 138-8 filed 10/26/17 page 1 of 2
USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00334-SLC document 138-8 filed 10/26/17 page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          53,540
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              89
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                52,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    370,086
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           1,999
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             1,993
<LOANS>                                      1,575,762
<ALLOWANCE>                                     15,828
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,106,215
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,596,577
<SHORT-TERM>                                   160,126
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             15,135
<LONG-TERM>                                    150,015
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        79,444
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,918
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,106,215
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 85,514
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               17,435
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   598
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               103,547
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              35,870
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              43,166
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           60,381
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,064
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  90
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 47,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,897
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      19,897
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,153
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .89
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.59
<LOANS-NON>                                      9,765
<LOANS-PAST>                                       509
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   213
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,702
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,853
<RECOVERIES>                                       915
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               15,828
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            15,828
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
ex10-37.htm


    
      

      

    


    EXHIBIT
10.37

    


    


    Overview
of Compensation Arrangements for Preston D. Swafford Effective as of October 27,
2009

    


    Effective
as of October 27, 2009, Mr. Kilgore approved a $100,000 lump sum performance
award for Mr. Swafford for improvements in the overall performance of Watts Bar
Nuclear Plant in 2009 based on nuclear power industry peer
evaluations.  The award recognizes Mr. Swafford’s demonstrated
leadership and commitment to teamwork, safety, and high level of performance
throughout TVA’s nuclear organization, which contributed to the improved
performance achieved by Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Salvatore Gianni, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[942 NYS2d 850]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Joseph E. Fahey, J.), rendered August 20, 2008. The judgment revoked defendant’s sentence of probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

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

Same memorandum as in *People v Gianni*(94 AD3d 1477 [2012]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto and Lindley, JJ.
S. 535 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven 

An Act 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease certain lands within Fort Pulaski 

National Monument, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fort Pulaski National Monument 

Lease Authorization Act’’. 

SEC. 2. LEASE AUTHORIZATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior (referred to 

in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) may lease to the Savannah 

Bar Pilots Association, or a successor organization, no more than 

30,000 square feet of land and improvements within Fort Pulaski 

National Monument (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Monument’’) 

at the location on Cockspur Island that has been used continuously 

by the Savannah Bar Pilots Association since 1940. 

(b) RENTAL FEE AND PROCEEDS.— 

(1) RENTAL FEE.—For the lease authorized by this Act, 

the Secretary shall require a rental fee based on fair market 

value adjusted, as the Secretary deems appropriate, for 

amounts to be expended by the lessee for property preservation, 

maintenance, or repair and related expenses. 

(2) PROCEEDS.—Disposition of the proceeds from the rental 

fee required pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be made in accordance with section 3(k)(5) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 

1a–2(k)(5)). 

(c) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—A lease entered into under this 

section— 

(1) shall be for a term of no more than 10 years and, 

at the Secretary’s discretion, for successive terms of no more 

than 10 years at a time; and 

(2) shall include any terms and conditions the Secretary 

determines to be necessary to protect the resources of the 

Monument and the public interest. 

(d) EXEMPTION FROM APPLICABLE LAW.—Except as provided 

in section 2(b)(2) of this Act, the lease authorized by this Act 
S. 535—2 

shall not be subject to section 3(k) of Public Law 91–383 (16 U.S.C. 

1a–2(k)) or section 321 of Act of June 30, 1932 (40 U.S.C. 1302). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
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

In connection  with the Annual Report of Amincor,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form
10-K for the period  ended  December 31, 2010 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on April 15, 2011 (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  in the
capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

     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 operation of
          the Company.


Date: April 15, 2011                       /s/ John R. Rice, III
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John R. Rice, III, President
[No. 19357-4-II.

Division Two.

September 26, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jose Rosas Flores, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 94-1-01433-1, James D. Ladley, J., entered April 6, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Bridgewater, A.C.J., and Seinfeld. J.
EX-10.24



 EXHIBIT 10.24 

KEMPHARM, INC. 

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR CASH STIPEND COMPENSATION
POLICY 
 Each member of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) who is not also serving as an employee of KemPharm,
Inc. (the “Company”) (each such member, an “Eligible Director”) will receive the compensation described in this Non-Employee Director Cash Stipend Compensation Policy for his or her Board service
following the closing of the initial public offering (the “Offering”) of the Company’s common stock (the “Common Stock”). This Non-Employee Director Cash Stipend Compensation Policy will be
effective upon the execution of the underwriting agreement in connection with the Offering (the date of such execution being referred to as the “Effective Date”). An Eligible Director may decline all or any portion of his or
her compensation by giving notice to the Company prior to the date cash is to be paid or equity awards are to be granted, as the case may be. This policy may be amended at any time in the sole discretion of the Board or the Compensation Committee of
the Board. 
 Annual Cash Compensation 
 The annual cash
compensation amount set forth below is payable in equal quarterly installments, payable in arrears on the last day of each fiscal quarter in which the service occurred. If an Eligible Director joins the Board or a committee of the Board at a time
other than effective as of the first day of a fiscal quarter, each annual retainer set forth below will be pro-rated based on days served in the applicable fiscal year, with the pro-rated amount paid for the first fiscal quarter in which the
Eligible Director provides the service, and regular full quarterly payments thereafter. All annual cash fees are vested upon payment. 
  

	1.	Annual Board Service Retainer: 

  

	 	a.	All Eligible Directors: $25,000 

  

	 	b.	Lead Independent Director of the Board Service Retainer (in addition to Eligible Director Service Retainer): $15,000 

  

	2.	Annual Committee Member Service Retainer: 

  

	 	a.	Member of the Audit Committee: $7,500 

  

	 	b.	Member of the Compensation Committee: $5,000 

  

	 	c.	Member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee: $5,000 

  

	3.	Annual Committee Chair Service Retainer (in addition to Committee Member Service Retainer): 

  

	 	a.	Chairman of the Audit Committee: $2,500 

  

	 	b.	Chairman of the Compensation Committee: $2,500 

  

	 	c.	Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee: $0 


  
 1.
Exhibit 10.7(f)


 


Fifth
AMENDMENT TO 


DISTRIBUTION SERVICES AGREEMENT


(Wholesale Distribution)


 


This Fifth Amendment to
the Distribution Services Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of June 3, 2013 (the “Amendment
Effective Date”), by and between DYAX CORP. (“Dyax”) and ASD Specialty Healthcare, Inc. (“ASD”).


 


WHEREAS, Dyax and ASD entered
into that certain Distribution Services Agreement, dated November 19, 2009, as amended (the “Agreement”), pursuant
to which ASD provides distribution services to Dyax in connection with the product Kalbitor®; and


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to and
in accordance with Section 15.5 of the Agreement, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to implement certain changes to the
terms and conditions of the Agreement, as described below.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:


 


		1.	Defined Terms.



Any capitalized terms that are used
in this Amendment but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


2.    Amendments.


 


Inventory Report.
Section 9.7 of the Agreement is hereby deleted, in its entirety, and replaced with the following:


 


		9.7	Inventory Report. In addition the reports in Sections 9.1 and 9.2, ASD also provide Dyax
with a daily inventory report in Excel format, at the time and with the consent mutually agreed upon by the parties. In consideration
for this report, ASD shall be entitled to an additional 1% discount off the purchase price for all Product purchased under this
Agreement, and ASD shall be entitled to deduct such discount from the invoiced amount payable to Dyax.



 


3.     No Other Amendments.


 


Except as expressly amended hereby,
the Agreement, as originally executed remains in full force and effect. It is agreed by the parties that all references to the
Agreement hereafter made by them in any document or instrument delivered pursuant to or in connection with the Agreement shall
be deemed to refer to the Agreement as amended hereby.


 


4.         Entire Agreement.


 


This Amendment and the Agreement
embody the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede
all prior agreements and understandings relating to the subject matter.


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


5.        Counterparts.


 


This Amendment may be executed in
multiple counterparts, each of which will be considered an original, but which together will constitute one and the same document.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereto have caused this Fifth Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized officers or representatives as of the Amendment
Effective Date.


 


 


	ASD Specialty healthcare, inc.	DYAX CORP.
	 	 
	By:	/s/Neil Herson	By:	/s/Peter Yi
	 	 	 	 
	Name:	Neil Herson	Name:	Peter Yi
	 	 	 	 
	Title:	President	Title:	Sr. Dir, Access & Channel Ops


 




    	Page 2 of 2
#### REXFORD et al., Respondents, v. TANNER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 27, 1912.)

Action by Everett A. Rexford and others against Walter Tanner. No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs. See, also, 134 App. Div. 907, 118 N. Y. Supp. 1137.