alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1
                                                             ------------
                                           December 16, 2009
W. Richard Roth
C/o  SJW Corp.
110 W. Taylor Street
San Jose, CA 95110

Dear Rich:

It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the Executive Compensation
Committee of the SJW Corp. Board of Directors has approved an amendment to
your amended and restated employment agreement with SJW Corp. entered into
in December 2008 (the "Restated Employment Agreement") that will increase
your annual rate of base salary, effective January 1, 2010.  The purpose of
this letter agreement is to evidence that amendment and set forth the
annual rate of base salary that will be in effect for you for each of the
next five calendar years.

     1.  Section 4(a) of your Restated Employment Agreement is hereby
amended as follows:


         "(a)  Your annual base salary for each of the 2010, 2011 and 2012
calendar years will be at a rate of $625,000 per year.  Your annual base
salary for the 2013 calendar year shall be increased by 4% to the dollar
amount of $650,000, and your annual base salary for the 2014 calendar year
shall be increased by an additional 4% to the dollar amount of $676,000.
Such rates of annual base salary shall remain in force and effect for so
long as you continue your employment pursuant to this agreement.  Your
annual base salary shall be paid according to the Company's standard
payroll practices for salaried employees and will be reviewed periodically
as set forth below.  Your annual rate of base salary as in effect from
time to time during the term of this agreement will be referred to as
"Base Salary."

     2.  Except as modified by the foregoing amendment, all the terms and
provisions of your existing Restated Employment Agreement shall continue in
full force and effect.

Please contact me should you have any questions concerning the foregoing
amendment. A duplicate original of this amendment agreement is enclosed.
Please sign both copies and return one signed copy to me and retain the
second copy for your records.

Sincerely,

SJW Corp.

By: /s/ J. Philip DiNapoli
    --------------------------------
Title: Chair, Executive Compensation Committee of the SJW Corp. Board of
       Directors

I HAVE READ THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT AND UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT ITS TERMS.
I SIGN THIS AMENDMENT AGREEMENT VOLUNTARILY AND FREELY:

/s/ W. Richard Roth                           Date:   December 16, 2009
------------------------------------
          W.  Richard Roth
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 29, 2016

t0726

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2016

153522 & (56)

In re SCHWEIN Estate

_________________________________________

SANDY MEAD, Personal Representative for the

Estate of DAVID SCHWEIN

Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 153522

COA: 324305 

Ingham Probate Ct: 13-002609-DE

KEVIN BARTON, TERRI ANDERSON and

MEREDITH BARTON,

Respondents-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2016 

judgment of the Court of Appeals and the motion to confirm and/or order stay of the 

Ingham Probate Court proceedings are considered. The motion to stay is GRANTED 

pursuant to MCL 600.867(1).

The application for leave to appeal remains pending.
#### Annette Miserendino et al., Appellants, v City of Mount Vernon et al., Respondents.

[946 NYS2d 605]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered April 12, 2011, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The injured plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when she tripped and fell on a fire hose used by the defendant Fire Department of the City of Mount Vernon (hereinafter the Fire Department), to combat a fire in her apartment building. The injured plaintiff and her husband, suing derivatively, commenced this action against the Fire Department and the City of Mount Vernon (hereinafter together the City). After issue was joined, the City moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the firefighters and police officers on the scene were performing discretionary governmental functions and owed no special duty to the injured plaintiff. The Supreme Court granted the City’s motion, the plaintiffs appeal, and we affirm.

“ ‘[Government action, if discretionary, may not be a basis for liability, while ministerial actions may be, but only if they violate a special duty owed to the plaintiff, apart from any duty to the public in general’ ” *(Valdez v City of New*York, 18 NY3d 69, 76-77 [2011], quoting *McLean v City of New York,*12 NY3d 194, 203 [2009]; *see United Servs. Auto. Assn. v Wiley,*73 AD3d 1160, 1163 [2010]). Here, the defendants established that, at the time of the injured plaintiff’s fall, they were performing discretionary rather than ministerial acts. Thus, in the absence of a special relationship with the injured plaintiff giving rise to a special duty, the City could not be held liable for the actions of its employees. In opposition to the City’s prima facie showing, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether a special relationship existed between the injured plaintiff and the City *(see McLean v City of New York,*12 NY3d at 199, 201-203; *United Servs. Auto. Assn. v Wiley,*73 AD3d at 1163).

*811Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the City’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The parties’ remaining contentions either need not be reached in light of our determination or are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Eng, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
# C_2019363EN.01003301.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/33

---

Action brought on 12 September 2019 – Point Tec Products Electronic v EUIPO – Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon (Representation of two extended wings)

(Case T-615/19)

(2019/C 363/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Point Tec Products Electronic GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: D. Wiedemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (St-Imier, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark representing two extended wings – International registration designating the European Union No 1 349 160

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2019 in Case R 2427/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

** **

** **

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Bluefly, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended June 30, 2012,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph C. Park, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operationsof the Company.

 

 

/s/ Joseph C. Park

 

Joseph C. Park

Chief Executive Officer

August 14, 2012
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Hurk, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J.), rendered September 5, 1980, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Defendant Christopher Hurk and his codefendant Derek Alleyne were tried together on charges arising from an August 11, 1979 incident wherein Alleyne snatched a gold chain and medallion from the neck of complainant Craig Morris. Testimony at the trial indicated that during an ensuing fight between Alleyne and Morris, the defendant, present throughout, repeatedly struck Morris, and told Alleyne “back away, back away. I’m going to blow him away”.

Defendant argues on this appeal that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was acting in concert with his codefendant Derek Alleyne (Penal Law §§ 160.10 [1], 20.00). A jury verdict will not be disturbed if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, *any*rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt *(People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620,621). In deciding whether the People met their burden as to the element of intent, we are required to determine whether, considering the facts proved and the inferences that could reasonably be drawn therefrom, the jury could have concluded that there was no reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit the crime charged *(People v Barnes,*50 NY2d 375, 381; *People v Castillo,*47 NY2d 270, 277). On this record, the *934jury could have rationally concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant aided Alleyne in preventing Morris from recovering his gold chain, and that defendant intended to commit the crime of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 160.10 [1]; *People v Barnes, supra; see also, Matter of Wade F.,*66 AD2d 819, *affd*49 NY2d 730). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
#### M A A S, Respondent, v. B R O O K L Y N HEIGHTS R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

Action by John W. Maas against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court unanimously affirmed, with costs.
# C_2022037EN.01002701.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2021 — Aman Dimashq v Council

(Case T-259/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to pursue an economic activity - Misuse of powers - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to a fair trial - Right to effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 37/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aman Dimashq JSC (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Cloquet and J.-P. Buyle, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 13), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 18 I, p. 4), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/806 of 17 May 2019 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 36), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2019 L 132, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aman Dimashq JSC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aman Dimashq JSC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.

---
# C_2021128EN.01003302.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2021 — Forte v Parliament

(Case T-519/19) (1)

(Institutional law - Single statute for Members of the European Parliament - Members of the European Parliament elected in Italian constituencies - Adoption by the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati (Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, Italy) of Decision No 14/2018, on pensions - Adjustment of the amount of pensions for Italian national deputies - Corresponding amendment by the European Parliament of the amount of the pensions of certain former Members of the European Parliament elected in Italy - Competence of the author of the act - Obligation to state reasons - Acquired rights - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Right to property - Proportionality - Equal treatment)

(2021/C 128/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mario Forte (Naples, Italy) (represented by: C. Forte and G. Forte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and S. Alves, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the note of 11 June 2019 prepared by the Parliament relating to the adjustment of the amount of the pension received by the applicant upon the entry into force, on 1 January 2019, of Decision No 14/2018 of the Ufficio di Presidenza della Camera dei deputati.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Mario Forte to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Mario Forte to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.

---
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 Quarterly Report
of Bluefly, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Melissa Payner-Gregor, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, 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; 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/
      Melissa Payner-GregorMelissa
      Payner-GregorChief
      Executive OfficerAugust
      4, 2009
EXHIBIT 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CuraGen Corporation (the Company) for the period ended September 30, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Timothy M. Shannon, M.D., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and David M. Wurzer, Executive Vice-President, Chief
Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.



|                        |  |     |  |                                                                
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 9, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Timothy M. Shannon, M.D.                                   
|                        |  |     |  | Timothy M. Shannon, M.D.                                       
|                        |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President                          
|                        |  |     |  | (principal executive officer of the registrant)                
|                        |  |    
|                        |  |     |  |                                                                
|Dated: November 9, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ David M. Wurzer                                            
|                        |  |     |  | David M. Wurzer                                                
|                        |  |     |  | Executive Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|                        |  |     |  | (principal financial and accounting officer of the registrant)
Exhibit
13.1


PRINCIPAL
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Annual Report of Nordic American Tanker Shipping Limited.
(the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on or about the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Herbjørn Hansson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, 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;
and





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





A
signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.





Date:  May 9,
2008





/s/
      Herbjørn
      HanssonHerbjørn
      HanssonChairman,
      Chief Executive Officer and President














SK
01318 0002 881212
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Casper Lassiter, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered on May 1, 1984, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur&emdash;Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Lynch, Milonas and JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15829]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #17041 and #17042; Georgia Disaster Number GA-
00124]


Administrative Declaration of a Disaster for the State of Georgia

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Georgia dated 07/20/2021.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Tornadoes.
    Incident Period: 03/25/2021 through 03/26/2021.

DATES: Issued on 07/20/2021.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 09/20/2021.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/20/2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Coweta.
Contiguous Counties:
    Georgia: Carroll, Fayette, Fulton, Heard, Meriwether, Spalding, 
Troup.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      2.500
  Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      1.250
  Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      6.000
  Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      3.000
  Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.000
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.000
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit      3.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17041 C 
and for economic injury is 17042 0.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Georgia.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Isabella Guzman,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-15829 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-03-P