alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert Morgan et al., Respondents, v El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd., Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Wright, J.), entered September 13, 1984, granting, on various conditions, plaintiffs-respondents’ motion to file a statement of readiness and note of issue nunc pro tunc and denying defendant-appellant El Al’s cross motion to dismiss, is reversed, on the law, with costs, appellant’s cross motion to dismiss is granted and plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed, with prejudice.

Plaintiff-respondent Morgan, a baggage handler, was allegedly injured in 1977, when a baggage container fell on him as it was being transported on a dolly at JFK International Airport. After a precalendar conference in September 1981, plaintiff was directed to file a note of issue and a certificate of readiness by December 15,1981. He failed to do this and on January 21,1982 plaintiff’s time to file was extended to February 27, 1982.

Over one year later, plaintiff filed a motion returnable April 29,1983 seeking an order to permit the filing of the note of issue nunc pro tunc. Plaintiff’s counsel blamed the delay on an associate purportedly unfamiliar with the nuances of calendar practice. This motion too was granted, the order entered June 24, 1983, extending the time to file to July 29, 1983.

However, there was no action until April 16, 1984, when plaintiff’s counsel moved for an order permitting a note of issue nunc pro tunc, blaming failure to file on time on an answering service. Special Term once again granted plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff failed to file an affidavit of merit nor was an adequate reason provided for plaintiff’s failure to ascertain the outcome of the previous motion.

CPLR 2005 permits excusing a default for law office failure. “Required are a reasonable excuse for the delay and an affidavit of merits.” *(Fidelity & Deposit Co. v Andersen & Co.,*60 NY2d 693, 695.) Inasmuch as neither excuse nor merit are properly demonstrated, the determination must be reversed and defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint is granted. *(See also, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells,*64 NY2d 904; *Canter v Mulnick,*60 NY2d 689; *Stolowitz v Mount Sinai Hosp.,*60 NY2d 685.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Milonas, JJ.
Exhibit 10.2


 


FORM OF AMENDMENT #1 TO THE SHARE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
DATED JULY 21, 2021 


 


THIS AMENDMENT #1 (the “Amendment”)
TO THE SHARE EXCHANGE AGREEMENT dated July 21, 2021, is made effective as of July 16, 2021, by and between (i) C-Bond Systems, Inc. a
Colorado corporation (the “Company”); (ii) Mobile Tint LLC, a Texas limited liability company (“Mobile”), (iii)
the sole member of Mobile as set forth on the signature page hereto (the “Mobile Shareholder”) and (iv) Michael Wanke as the
representative of the Mobile Shareholder (the “Shareholder Representative”).


 


BACKGROUND


 


A.       The
Company, Mobile, Mobile Shareholder, and Shareholder Representative are the parties to that certain share exchange agreement dated June
30, 2021 (the “SEA”); and


 


B.       The
Parties desire to amend the SEA as set forth expressly below.


 


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration
of the execution and delivery of the Amendment and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.       The
first sentence of Section 2.08(a) of the SEA shall be replaced with the following:


 


“(a)For U.S. federal income tax
purposes, the Exchange and the Additional Closing (if exercised) are intended to qualify as a “reorganization” within the
meaning of Section 368(a) of the Code and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder.”


 


2.       The
reference to “July 16, 2021” in the definition of “Termination Date” in the SEA shall be replaced with “July
21, 2021”.


 


3.       The
definition of “Total EBIT Value” shall mean Mobile’s net income, before income tax expense and interest expense have
been deducted, for the period beginning on July 1, 2021 and ending on June 30, 2023, plus fifty percent (50%) of the Mobile Shareholder’s
Base Salary (as defined in that certain Executive Employment Agreement dated July 21, 2021, between the Mobile Shareholder and the Company).


 


4.       This
Amendment shall be deemed part of, but shall take precedence over and supersede any provisions to the contrary contained in the SEA. Except
as specifically modified hereby, all of the provisions of the SEA, which are not in conflict with the terms of this Amendment, shall remain
in full force and effect.


 


[signature page to follow]


 


 






    1


     


    

 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


	 	C-Bond Systems, Inc. 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	 	 
	 	Name: 	Scott Silverman 	 
	 	Title:   	Chief Executive Officer	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	Mobile Tint LLC	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By: 	 	 
	 	Name: 	Michael Wanke 	 
	 	Title:   	Sole Member 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	Shareholder Representative	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By: 	 	 
	 	Name: 	Michael Wanke	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	Shareholder:	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By: 	 	 
	 	Name: 	Michael Wanke	 
	 	 	 	 



 


 



    2
EXHIBIT 32.1

CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
§1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation, respectively,
certify that, to the best of their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation and subsidiary at the dates and
for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and shall
not be relied upon for any other purpose. The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.



|             |  |                                                                  
|------------ |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|May 13, 2008 |  | /s/ Robert H. Gilliam, Jr.                                       
|Date         |  | Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., President and Chief Executive
Officer    
|             | 
|May 13, 2008 |  | /s/ Bryan M. Lemley                                              
|Date         |  | Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief
Financial Officer
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 265 

Honoring the lifetime achievements of E. Thom Rumberger. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 

Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the lifetime achievements of E. Thom Rumberger. 

Whereas E. Thom Rumberger served in the United States 

Marine Corps; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger earned a bachelor’s degree, with 

honors, and a J.D. from the University of Florida; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger was a founding partner of the law 

firm Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, which has represented 

multinational corporations such as American Airlines, 

Inc., Sears, Roebuck and Co., and Toyota Motor Corporation; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger was listed in Florida Super Lawyers every year from 2007 to 2010; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger was appointed Circuit Judge in 

the 18th Judicial Circuit of Florida in 1969; 


ebenthall on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 265 ATS 

Whereas Thom Rumberger committed himself to numerous 

acts of public service, including serving on the Federal 

Judicial Advisory Commission of Florida and the Board 

of Supervisors of the Spaceport Florida Authority; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger was one of the most steadfast 

champions of the Everglades in Florida; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger served as lead counsel for the Everglades Foundation since 1999; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger was instrumental in the passage 

of 2 amendments to the Florida Constitution and of section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 

2000 (Public Law 106–541; 114 Stat. 2680), known as 

the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan; 

Whereas Thom Rumberger was instrumental in obtaining 

several billion dollars in funding for Everglades restoration; and 

Whereas Thom Rumberger served on the Florida Governor’s 

2001 Select Task Force on Elections and the 2002 Select 

Task Force on Election Procedures, Standards and Technology, and was Chairman of the Legislature’s Study 

Committee on Public Records in 2002: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) recognizes and honors the professional suc3 cess of E. Thom Rumberger; and 

4 (2) recognizes and honors the lifelong dedica5 tion of Thom Rumberger to the protection of the 

6 Florida Everglades. 

Æ 


ebenthall on DSK29S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021028EN.01003601.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/36

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — BMC v Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

(Case T-71/19) (1)

(Research and technological development and space - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation ‘Horizon 2020’ (2014-2020) - Procedure for call for proposals H2020-CS 2 -CFP08-FRC-2018-01 - Rejection of the proposal submitted by the applicant - Assignment of non-integer scores - Article 15(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Failure to sufficiently examine the proposal - Distortion of the facts)

(2021/C 28/55)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: BMC Srl (Medicina, Italy) (represented by: S. Dindo and L. Picotti, lawyers)

Defendant: the joint undertaking Clean Sky 2 (represented by: B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent, and by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the joint undertaking Clean Sky 2 of 10 October 2018 rejecting proposal No 831874 ‘smart De-icing bARrier Filter (DwARF)’ submitted by the applicant in call for proposals H2020-CS 2-CFP08-FRC-2018-01 and of its decision of 6 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for a review of the assessment of that proposal and confirming the decision 10 October 2018 by which it rejected that proposal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders BMC Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders BMC Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.

---
Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 1 of 35 PageID #:1

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 2 of 35 PageID #:2

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 3 of 35 PageID #:3

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 4 of 35 PageID #:4

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 5 of 35 PageID #:5

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 6 of 35 PageID #:6

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 7 of 35 PageID #:7

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 8 of 35 PageID #:8

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 9 of 35 PageID #:9

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 10 of 35 PageID #:10

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 11 of 35 PageID #:11

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 12 of 35 PageID #:12

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 13 of 35 PageID #:13

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 14 of 35 PageID #:14

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 15 of 35 PageID #:15

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 16 of 35 PageID #:16

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 17 of 35 PageID #:17

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 18 of 35 PageID #:18

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 19 of 35 PageID #:19

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 20 of 35 PageID #:20

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 21 of 35 PageID #:21

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 22 of 35 PageID #:22

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 23 of 35 PageID #:23

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 24 of 35 PageID #:24

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 25 of 35 PageID #:25

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 26 of 35 PageID #:26

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 27 of 35 PageID #:27

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 28 of 35 PageID #:28

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 29 of 35 PageID #:29

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 30 of 35 PageID #:30

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 31 of 35 PageID #:31

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 32 of 35 PageID #:32

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 33 of 35 PageID #:33

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 34 of 35 PageID #:34

Case: 1:03-cv-00989 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/10/03 Page 35 of 35 PageID #:35
# C_2019295EN.01008201.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/82

---

Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Crédit agricole and Others v SRB

(Case T-488/19)

(2019/C 295/108)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and the 48 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants;

| — | pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






  — | Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:

—

Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;

| — | Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto;

| — | Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation; |
| --- | --- |

—

Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-466/19, Société générale and Others v SRB.

---
| Company                                                                                      | State of Incorporation |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
|                                                                                         |                   |
| Young Dental Manufacturing I, LLC                                                            | Missouri               |
| YI Europe, Limited                                                                           | England                |
| Young Acquisitions Company                                                                   | Missouri               |
|           Panoramic Rental Corp            | Missouri               |
| Athena Technology, LLC                                                                       | Missouri               |
| Young PS Acquisitions, LLC                                                                   | Delaware               |
| Young Colorado, LLC                                                                          | Delaware               |
| Young OS, LLC                                                                                | Delaware               |
| YI Ventures, LLC                                                                             | Delaware               |
|           Mid-West Dental Laboratory, Inc. | Indiana                |
| Young Microbrush LLC                                                                         | Delaware               |
| Young Microbrush International, LLC                                                          | Delaware               |
|           Young Microbrush Ireland, Ltd.   | Ireland                |
| Sav-A-Life, LLC                                                                              | Illinois               |
| Green Mountain Research, LLC                                                                 | Illinois               |
# C_2019399EN.01006601.xml

| 25.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/66 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/66

---

Order of the General Court of 11 September 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council

(Case T-61/19) (1)

(Action for compensation - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Lack of competence)

(2019/C 399/82)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by E. Ruchat, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018 L 131, p. 16) and its subsequent implementing acts, and as a result 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), in so far as those decisions concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Drex Technologies SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Drex Technologies SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.

---
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO THE 
 2016
STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 OF ICAD, INC. 

This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the iCAD, Inc. 2016 Stock Incentive Plan (as may be amended from time to time, the “Plan”) is made as
of July 15, 2021 (the “Effective Date”). Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan. 

WHEREAS, Section 18 of the Plan provides that the Plan may be amended, from time to time, subject to approval of such amendment by the
Company stockholders; 
 WHEREAS, the Company stockholders approved the Amendment at the 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders on
July 15, 2021; 
 NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 18 of the Plan, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the
Effective Date: 
  

	1.	 Section 3(a) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 



(a) Stock Issuable. The maximum number of shares of Stock reserved and available for issuance under the Plan shall be 4,700,000 shares,
subject to adjustment as provided in this Section 3. For purposes of this limitation, the shares of Stock underlying any Awards that are forfeited, canceled or otherwise terminated (other than by exercise or withheld to cover the exercise price
or tax withholdings, as described below) under the Plan shall be added back to the shares of Stock available for issuance under the Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following shares shall not be added to the shares authorized for grant under
the Plan: (i) shares tendered or held back upon exercise of an Option or settlement of an Award to cover the exercise price or tax withholding, and (ii) shares subject to a Stock Appreciation Right that are not issued in connection with
the stock settlement of the Stock Appreciation Right upon exercise thereof. In the event the Company repurchases shares of Stock on the open market, such shares shall not be added to the shares of Stock available for issuance under the Plan. Subject
to such overall limitations, shares of Stock may be issued up to such maximum number pursuant to any type or types of Award; provided, however, that Stock Options or Stock Appreciation Rights with respect to no more than 1,000,000 shares of Stock
may be granted to any one individual grantee during any one calendar year period, no more than 2,000,000 shares of the Stock may be issued in the form of Incentive Stock Options, and no more than 120,000 shares of Stock may be issued pursuant to
Awards to Non-Employee Directors in any calendar year period. The shares available for issuance under the Plan may be authorized but unissued shares of Stock or shares of Stock reacquired by the
Company. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by its duly authorized officer, has executed this Amendment to the iCAD, Inc. 2016 Stock Incentive Plan, as
amended, as of the date first indicated above. 
  

			
	iCAD, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael Klein

	Name: Michael Klein
	Title: Chief Executive Officer
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 quarter ended June 30,
2010, 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
      6, 2010