alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Gregory Rowe, Respondent, v Administrator for Children’s Services-Queens, Respondent, and Charity M. Smith, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 168]—

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Anixiadis, R.), dated March 10, 2011, which, after a hearing, awarded sole custody of the subject children to the father. The notice of appeal from a decision of the same court, also dated March 10, 2011, is deemed to be a notice of appeal from the order *(see*CPLR 5512 [a]).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly considered the totality of the circumstances in determining that the best interests of the subject children would be served by awarding sole custody to the father *(see Matter of Cordero v DeLeon,*92 AD3d 943 [2012]). This determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and should not be disturbed *(see Matter of Gasby v Chung,*88 AD3d 709 [2011]; *Matter of Francois v Grimm,*84 AD3d 1082 [2011]).

*1221The Family Court did not err in proceeding without the testimony of the forensic evaluator, as the court was not required to order a forensic evaluation. Family Court Act § 251 (a) provides that the Family Court may order a parent “to be examined by a physician, psychiatrist or psychologist . . . when such an examination will serve the purposes of this act, [and] the court may remand any such person, for [a] physical or psychiatric examination ... or direct such person to appear for such examination.” However, the statute does not require such an examination. The recommendation of a court-appointed expert is but one factor to be considered, and it is entitled to some weight *(see Matter of Nikolic v Ingrassia,*47 AD3d 819 [2008]). Here, the Family Court found that such an examination would help it make its determination, and repeatedly asked the mother if she would cooperate. The mother repeatedly declined to cooperate with a forensic evaluation, stating that it would be a “waste of my time.” The Family Court made every effort to obtain an expert opinion in this case. Having refused to cooperate with the forensic evaluation, to stipulate to have the evaluator’s report be admitted into evidence, or to have another evaluation done by a different evaluator, the mother cannot now claim that the Family Court erred in making a determination without expert testimony or evidence. The Family Court did not simply dispense with a forensic evaluation; it attempted to obtain such an evaluation, and finally proceeded in the face of the mother’s refusal to cooperate.

The mother’s contention that there was no signed stipulation for the referee who presided over the hearing to hear and determine the custody petition is without merit, as the mother signed a stipulation dated June 24, 2008, agreeing that this proceeding and the issues therein would be referred to the referee to hear and determine.

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 808 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of repayment contracts between the United States 

and the Uintah Water Conservancy District. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 808 ES

1 SECTION 1. PREPAYMENT OF CERTAIN REPAYMENT CON2 TRACTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND 

3 THE UINTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DIS4 TRICT. 

5 The Secretary of the Interior shall allow for prepay6 ment of the repayment contract no. 6–05–01–00143 be7 tween the United States and the Uintah Water Conser8 vancy District dated June 3, 1976, and supplemented and 

9 amended on November 1, 1985, and on December 30, 

10 1992, providing for repayment of municipal and industrial 

11 water delivery facilities for which repayment is provided 

12 pursuant to such contract, under terms and conditions 

13 similar to those used in implementing section 210 of the 

14 Central Utah Project Completion Act (Public Law 102– 

15 575), as amended. The prepayment— 

16 (1) shall result in the United States recovering 

17 the net present value of all repayment streams that 

18 would have been payable to the United States if this 

19 Act was not in effect; 

20 (2) may be provided in several installments to 

21 reflect substantial completion of the delivery facili22 ties being prepaid, and any increase in the repay23 ment obligation resulting from delivery of water in 

24 addition to the water being delivered under this con25 tract as of the date of enactment of this Act; 
3 

†S 808 ES

1 (3) shall be adjusted to conform to a final cost 

2 allocation including costs incurred by the Bureau of 

3 Reclamation, but unallocated as of the date of the 

4 enactment of this Act that are allocable to the water 

5 delivered under this contract; 

6 (4) may not be adjusted on the basis of the 

7 type of prepayment financing used by the District; 

8 and 

9 (5) shall be made such that total repayment is 

10 made not later than September 30, 2022. 

Passed the Senate November 2, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 808 

AN ACT 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for 

vancy District. United States and the Uintah Water Conserprepayment of repayment contracts between the
#### MEAD, Respondent, v. HEATH et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 15, 1898.)

Action-by -Louisa A. Mead against Harriet R. Heath, and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 20, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10336 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ALVARO ROJAS-VASQUEZ, also known as Julio, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-190-1

-------------------- Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Alvaro Rojas-Vasquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rojas-Vasquez has not filed a response. Ou r independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Exhibit
      32


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 Artfest International, Inc., a Delaware
        corporation
  (the
        "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed
        with
        the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
        Larry D. Ditto, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Company, 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 the best of my knowledge:
  (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 result of operations of the Company.




DATED:
              March 23, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Larry
              D.
              DittoLarry
              D. DittoChairman
                and Chief Executive Officer
| 1.   | The      Annual Report of the Companies on Form 10-K for the year ended August 30,      2008 (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      Companies as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the      Report. |
|----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                  |                                              |   |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |                                  |                                              |
|   | /s/      KRIS G. RADHAKRISHNAN   |                                              |
|   | Name:                       | Kris G. Radhakrishnan                        |   |
|   | Title:                      | Chief Financial Officer and      Treasurer   |   |
|   |                                  |  (principal financial      officer)          |   |
|   |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Luis Rivera, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), entered on July 12, 1978, unanimously affirmed. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5). No opinion. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Ross and Carro, JJ.
#### JAMES A. KNIGHT, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. HERBERT P. COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT, AND HERBERT P. COHEN AND MURRAY KLEIN, A PARTNERSHIP, SUED HEREIN AS INDUSTRIAL LUMBER COMPANY, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Argued May 10, 1960

Decided June 6, 1960.

*498
      *Mr. Herbert Klosh*argued the cause for petitioner-appellant.

*Mr. Raymond L. Ounneen*argued the cause for Mr. Herbert P. Cohen, individually, respondent-respondent.

*Mr. Edward B. Meredith*argued the cause for remaining respondents.

Pee Cueiam.

This is a workmen’s compensation case in which we granted certification to review the determinations *499of the Appellate Division, 31 *N. J.*291 (1959). We affirm for the reasons expressed in its opinion which is reported at 56 *N. J. Super.*516, but believe further comment should be made on the matter of the computation of petitioner’s compensation rate.

We agree that only the individual employer is liable for workmen’s compensation payments but hold that the rate of payments is governed by the opinion of Judge Erancis (now Mr. Justice Erancis) in *Engelbretson v. American Stores,*49 *N. J. Super.*19 *(App. Div.*1957), affirmed 26 *N. J.*106 (1958). The formula therein set forth establishing the basis for computing the daily and weekly wages for an employee hired at an hourly rate is to be applied. The court held that in establishing the basis for computing daily wages for an employee hired at an hourly rate of pay, the reference in *N. J. S. A.*34:15-37 to the “customary number of working hours constituting an ordinary day in the character of the work involved” pertains to the regular or normal working day followed by an employer in the line or type of work in which a particular employee is engaged rather than to the number of hours in a day the petitioner is required to work (at 49 *N. J. Super., page*26).

We note that in *Engelbretson*the employee was paid at a rate of $1.15 per hour. Here, petitioner was paid $25 per month for work such as cutting grass and received extra compensation for other work. Ho hourly rate of pay was testified to. The record is unclear as to the hours worked by petitioner and as to his compensation therefor under the separate categories.

In order to apply the *Engelbretson*formula to this case testimony should be adduced establishing the specific character of all the work involved, the hourly rate at which petitioner was actually paid, the customary number of hours in the ordinary work day in that field, and the customary number of days in the work week in that type work. After these determinations are made and after reducing petitioner’s total monthly payments to an hourly rate, the daily and *500weekly amounts can be computed and the amount of compensation can be determined mathematically. *Cf. Engelb*retson, at *page*23.

Affirmed, without costs.

*For*affirmance—Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Bubling, Jacobs, Ebancis, Peoctoe, Hall and Schet-TIKTO—7.

*For*reversal—Hone.
EXHIBIT 99.1


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Vascular Solutions, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Howard Root, Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer of 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:

         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.


                                        /s/ Howard Root
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Howard Root
                                        Chief Executive Officer and
                                        Acting Chief Financial Officer
                                        October 18, 2002
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2022

No. 04-22-00540-CV

Al SUAREZ, as Mayor of the City of Converse, Jeff Beehler, as Place 5 Member, City Council 

of the City of Converse, Kathy Richel, as Place 1 Member, City Council of the City of Converse, 

Shawn Russell as Place 3 Member, City Council of the City of Converse, Marc Gilbert, as Place 

6 Member, City Council of the City of Converse, Le Ann Piatt, City Manager of the City of 

Converse, Holly Nagy as Secretary of the City of Converse, and the City of Converse,

Appellants

v.

Katherine SILVAS,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI22419

Honorable Aaron Haas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is 

GRANTED. The appellee’s brief is due on January 10, 2023. No further requests for extensions 

of time will be allowed.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 22nd day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.5


                            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 Exhibit 99.3 of the Annual Report of Noble
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31,
2002, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on June
27, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Tim S. Thomasson, Controller of Noble Drilling
Corporation, Plan Sponsor of the Noble Drilling Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (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 net assets available for benefits
                  and changes in net assets available for benefits of the Noble
                  Drilling Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan.



June 30, 2003                          /s/  TIM S. THOMASSON
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Tim S. Thomasson
                                       Controller of Noble Drilling Corporation,
                                       Plan Sponsor of the Noble Drilling
                                       Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan


[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Noble Corporation and will be retained by Noble Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

August 11, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00210

- CV

Randy RUSTON and Amanda Ruston,

Appellants

v.

JUMP ENTERPRISES , LLC

, Appellee

From the County Court

, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4696

Honorable Bob Brendel , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with the court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT

OF JURISDICTION. We order that no costs be assessed against appellants Randy Ruston and

Amanda Ruston.

It is so ORDERED on August 11, 2021

.

_____________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 11th day of August, 2021

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz , Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2365 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2365

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the time limitation 
for use of eligibility and entitlement for educational assistance under 
                        the Montgomery GI Bill.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 2005

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the time limitation 
for use of eligibility and entitlement for educational assistance under 
                        the Montgomery GI Bill.

    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 ``Montgomery GI Bill Flexibility Act 
of 2005''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITATION FOR USE OF MONTGOMERY GI BILL 
              ENTITLEMENT.

    (a) Extension of Limitation Period.--Section 3031 of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by striking ``10-year'' each place it 
appears and inserting ``14-year''.
    (b) Effective Date and Applicability.--The amendment made by 
subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
Act, and shall apply to individuals whose entitlement to educational 
assistance under chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, has not 
expired as of such date under the provisions of section 3031 of such 
title as in effect on the date preceding such date of enactment.
                                 <all>
```
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document











































 
 

  EXHIBIT 10(a)    
    


 
 

  DESCRIPTION OF KATE SPADE & COMPANY
  2014 EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PLAN (CASH)    
    


For the 2014 fiscal year, Kate Spade & Company maintained a bonus plan for full time salaried employees under which bonuses were earned based
upon either Adjusted operating income of the segment or total Company, as measured against pre-established targets, and, as applicable, departmental performance considerations and the achievement of
individual goals, subject to certain terms and conditions. In addition, for the 2014 fiscal year, Kate Spade & Company maintained a bonus plan for certain executives under which bonuses were
earned based on total Company Adjusted operating income (75% of target bonus) and total Company free cash flow (25% of target bonus), also as measured against pre-established targets, and, as
applicable, departmental performance considerations and the achievement of individual goals, subject to certain terms and conditions. A similar bonus plan is anticipated for 2015, with financial
targets measured based on similar metrics. 











QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10(a)


DESCRIPTION OF KATE SPADE & COMPANY 2014 EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE PLAN (CASH)