alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### William C. Atkins, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated December 5, 1986, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to increase the ad damnum clause from $500,000 to $2,000,000.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under all of the facts and circumstances, it was not an abuse of discretion to grant the plaintiff’s motion. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
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

I, Gary Musselman, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Pacel Corp. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

1.       the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the Company for the period
         ended September 30, 2005 (the "Report) fully complies with the
         requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 15, 2005

--------------------------------
Gary Musselman, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2

Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, Vincent C. Klinges, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Logility, Inc.;

2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this
report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any
change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation
of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors:

(a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant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 a significant role in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: December 10, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Vincent C. Klinges 
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Vincent C. Klinges     
|                        |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 20440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10076]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 18, 2001.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.

Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-10076 Filed 4-19-01; 11:23 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6047 

To improve airport screening and security. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2010 

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To improve airport screening and security. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Guaranteeing Airport 

5 Physical Screening Standards Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SECURED AREAS OF AIRPORTS. 

7 (a) IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPROVED AIRPORT PE8 RIMETER ACCESS SECURITY.—Not later than 1 year after 

9 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Sec10 retary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Ad11 ministration) shall issue regulations, directives, or other 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6047 IH

1 appropriate measures to implement the requirements of 

2 section 44903(h)(4) of title 49, United States Code. 

3 (b) AIRPORT SECURITY PLANS.—The Assistant Sec4 retary shall set a schedule for requiring airports to update 

5 their airport security plans to comply with the require6 ments of section 44903(h)(4) not later than 3 years after 

7 the issuance of the regulations, directives, or other meas8 ures required under subsection (a). 

9 SEC. 3. HIRING OF SCREENERS. 

10 (a) NUMBER OF SCREENERS.—Notwithstanding any 

11 other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security 

12 may hire the number of passenger and baggage screeners 

13 that the Secretary determines necessary to ensure aviation 

14 security. 

15 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

16 are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 

17 necessary to carry out this section. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isaac Lee WOODS; Regina Bailey Woods; Ella R. Woods, Defendants-Appellants, and Unlimited Financial Resources, Defendant.

No. 10-2340.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 4, 2011.

Decided: April 22, 2011.

*248Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods, Ella R. Woods, Appellants Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Isaac Lee Woods, Regina Bailey Woods and Ella R. Woods appeal the district court’s order denying their motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. *See United States v. Woods,*No. 5:07-cv-00187-BR, 2010 WL 3811461 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2010). We deny the Woods’ motion for summary disposition. We also deny the motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
exv10w54









Exhibit 10.54




Executive Officer Compensation Summary



Alseres Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“the Company’s”) executive officers consist of (i) Peter G. Savas,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; (ii) Mark J. Pykett, President and Chief Operating Officer;
and (iii) Kenneth L. Rice, Jr., Executive Vice President, Finance and Administration, Chief
Financial Officer and Secretary.



2009 Base Salary. No Incentive Compensation was earned or paid in 2009.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	2009 Base Salary
	Mr. Savas
	 	$	408,085	 
	Mr. Pykett
	 	$	304,260	 
	Mr. Rice
	 	$	257,284
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
PALADYNE CORP. FORM 10-QSB FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      908
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,176
<PP&E>                                             384
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (206)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,784
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                         566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,400
<SALES>                                          2,860
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,860
<CGS>                                            2,404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,404
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,035
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  49
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (659)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (659)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (619)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,278)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.20)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.1

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 on Form 20-F/A of ViryaNet Ltd. (the Registrant) for the year ended
December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2006 (the Report), the undersigned, Menahem Ish-Shalom, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Albert A. Gabrielli, Chief Financial
Officer of the Registrant, do 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 our knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ Menahem Ish-Shalom               
|    |  | Menahem Ish-Shalom                   
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer June 30, 2006
|    | 
|    |  | /s/ Albert A. Gabrielli              
|    |  | Albert A. Gabrielli                  
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer June 30, 2006
آیا په دې وروستيو کې مو له يوځای څخه بل ځای ته کډه کړې؟

د امريکا متحده ايالتونو د اتباعو او کډوالۍ خدماتو دفتر )USCIS )

مهمې اطالعيې او اسناد له السه مهورکوئ

که تاسو داسې يو افغان تبعه ياست چې د متحدانو د هرکلي عملياتو (OAW (په ترڅ کې مو په متحده ايالتونو کې مشروط اقامت ترالسه 

کړی، په مهربانۍ سره د خپلې پتې بدلون په صورت کې د امريکا متحده ايالتونو د اتباعو او کډوال خدماتو دفتر )USCIS )ته خبر ورکړئ 

څو ډاډ ترالسه شي چې تاسو د امريکا متحده ايالتونو د اتباعو او کډوالۍ خدماتو دفتر ټول مکتوبونه لکه اعالميې او د کار جواز سندونه له 

ځڼد پرته ترالسه کوئ. ستاسو د فزيکي پتې په اړه معلومات د مشروط اقامت ترالسه کولو يو شرط دی. هر ځل چې مو موقعيت له يو ځای 

څخه بل ځای ته بدلوئ، د خپلې نوې پتې په اړه مو د 10 ورځو په ترڅ کې د امريکا متحده ايالتونو د اتباعو او کډوال خدماتو دفتر ته خبر 

ورکړئ، حتی که يو لنډمهاله ځای ته هم کډه کوئ، د خپلې پتې په اړه ريپورټ ورکړئ . که د 10 ورڅو په ترڅ کې مو د خپلې نوې پتې په 

اړه ريپورت نهوي ورکړی، نو په مهربانۍ سره ژر تر ژره د امريکا متحده ايالتونو د اتباعو او کډوالو خدماتو دفتر ته معلومات ورکړئ. 

1 قدمه: له -11ar/gov.uscis ويب پاڼې څخه ليدنه وکړئ او به آنالين ثبت باندې کليک وکړئ.

2 قدمه: د پتې بدلون پاڼه ولولئ او د پاڼې الندې برخه کې دوام باندې کليک وکړئ.

3 قدمه: دغه پوښتنه ځواب کړئ » آيا د کډوالۍ اړوند غوښتنليک او عريضه مو ثبت کړې او تر اوسه مو اطالعيه، کارت يا د تصميم 

نيونې سند نه دی ترالسه کړی؟« 

• که د ځنډ په حالت کې دوسيه لرئ، د هو برخه انتخاب کړئ.

• که د ځنډ په حالت کې دوسيه نهلرئ د نه برخه انتخاب کړئ.

4 قدمه: د )-11AR )آنالين فورم ډک کړئ. تاسو به الندې مواردو ته اړتيا ولرئ:

• ستاسو په اطالعيه کې د رسيد شته شمېره ) يوازې هغه مهال چې ستاسو دوسيه تر پلټنې الندې وي(؛

• پخوانۍ او نوې پته؛ او

• د بریښناليک پته.

5 قدمه: په آنالين برخه کې د خپلو مندرجو مطالبو پلټنې لهپاره استول برخه کليک کړئ.

یادداښت: که چېرې د ګمارنې جواز سند د نه رسيد يا نه ترالسه کولو په اړه رپيورټ ته اړتيا لرئ، په request-e/gov.uscis ويبپانه 

کې د امريکا متحده ايالتونو د اتباعو او کډوالۍ خدماتو دفتر ته يو آنالين استعالم واستوئ.

که تاسو رسيد نهلرئ يا پتې بدلون غوښتنليک په اړه ستونزه يا پوښتنه لرئ gov.dhs.uscis@nbcafghancoa پتې څخه د امريکا متحده 

ايالتونو د اتباعو او کډوالۍ خدماتو دفتر ته بریښناليک واستوئ. يوازې هغه مهال له دغې برښنايي پتې څخه استفاده وکړئ چې په افغانستان کې د 

انساني ناورين له امله د 2021 کال د جوالی په 30 يا له هغه وروسته متحده ايالتونو ته راغلي ياست. همدارنګه کوالی شئ 800-375-5283

شمېرې سره اړېکه ونيسئ او يا د امريکا متحده ايالتونو د اتباعو او کډوالو خدماتو دفتر د اړېکو مرکز څخه ليدنه وکړئ. 

که د خپلې پتې په اړه په آنالين بڼه معلومات ورکوئ، اړ نه یاست ترڅود -11AR فورم له پست له الری واستوئ. د پتې آنالين بدلون په 

ساده، چټکۍ او اسانه توګه ترسره کېږي.

د امريکا متحده ايالتونو د پستي خدماتو دفتر) USPS )کې د پتې بدلون به د امريکا متحده ايالتونو د اتباعو او کډوالو خدماتو دفتر سره ستاسو پته 

بدله نهکړي. په مهربانۍ سره خپل معلومات د امريکا متحده ايالتونو د اتباعو او کډوالو خدماتو دفتر او د پستي خدماتو مرکز سره شريک کړئ. 

د الزياتو معلوماتو لهپاره د افغان اتباعو لهپاره د امريکا متحده ايالتونو د اتباعو او کډوالۍ خدماتو دفتر د اطالعاتو برخې ته په دې پته 

allieswelcome/gov.uscis مراجعه وکړئ. 

Pashto
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 8-06

IN RE: BILATERAL TINNITUS CASES

O R D E R

This order amends Miscellaneous Order 05-06 (issued July 12, 2006).

For the reasons stated in Miscellaneous Order 05-06, until further order of this Court, all

appeals that concern bilateral tinnitus in whole or in part currently pending with this Court and not

yet stayed, shall be stayed as of the date of this order. Further, any other such appeals filed after the

date of this order, shall be stayed on the date each such appeal is filed. Because, on September 18,

2006, a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court to review the judgment

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Smith v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir.

2006), these stays shall remain in effect until the Supreme Court has acted on the petition. 

DATED: September 25, 2006 FOR THE COURT:

NORMAN Y. HERRING

Clerk of the Court
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN ROSS BENNETT,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

OVERSEAS MILITARY SALES

GROUP/COMPANY/ORGANIZATION,

OMSG, OMSC, OMSO,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-35246

D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06129-AA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ann L. Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 16, 2013** 

Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Stephen Ross Bennett appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying

his motions for reconsideration of the district court’s judgment dismissing

Bennett’s diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction

FILED

APR 23 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-35246

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Sch. Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993), and we

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bennett’s motions

for reconsideration because Bennett failed to establish grounds for relief under

either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See id. at 1263 (discussing

circumstances warranting reconsideration or relief from judgment under Rule 59(e)

and 60(b)). Because Bennett did not timely appeal from the district court’s

judgment, the merits of the underlying judgment are not before the court. See

Floyd v. Laws, 929 F.2d 1390, 1400 (9th Cir. 1991).

We deny Bennett’s motion for leave to enter new evidence, attached to the

end of his opening brief, and his motion for summary affirmance, filed on

August 13, 2012.

AFFIRMED.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 9, 2009

1215 

# Order

January 9, 2009

137372

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137372 COA: 286566 Genesee CC: 07-021211-FH YOLANDA LAMAR, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 4, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

H ATHAWAY 

### , J., not participating.
**Exhibit
      13.2**





Certification
      of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,


as
      adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act





In
      connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
      December 31, 2007 of MIND C.T.I. Ltd. (the “Company”) as filed with the U.S.
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on the date hereof (the
“Report”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Itay Barzilay, Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, certify that:





·
            
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                and





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





Date:
                June 30, 2008/s/
                Itay BarzilayItay
                BarzilayChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial Officer)
#### Bayles *et al. v.*Wallace.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.*

May 12, 1890.)

Statute of Frauds—Original Promise.

. Where plaintiffs refused to furnish any more, lumber to a contractor for use in the erection of a house for defendant unless defendant became responsible, defendant’s promise to pay for lumber thereafter delivered was an original undertaking, and therefore not void, under the statute of frauds, because not in writing.

Appeal from Suffolk county court.

Action by David T. Bayles and others against Howard Wallace. There was judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.

Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.

*Thomas J. Ritch, Jr.,*for appellant. *Thomas 8. Mount,*for respondent.

Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict rendered in the county court of Suffolk county in favor of the plaintiff, against the defendant, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial on the *192minutes of the court. The action was brought for the recovery of a balance due upon an account for lumber used in the erection of a building for the defendant. The contractor for the erection of the building was Samuel H. Brewster, and the agreement to furnish the lumber Was originally made with him; but the claim of the plaintiff, upon which this action is based, is that, after he had delivered some lumber under his agreement with this Brewster, he became suspicious, and informed the defendant that, unless he became responsible for the lumber, he would furnish no more, and that the defendant then agreed to become responsible for the lumber delivered subsequent to that time. That agreement was denied by the defendant, and the two theories were presented to the jury, with instructions to render a verdict for the plaintiff if the agreement was made as he claimed, and to find for the defendant if it was not made. The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff, and we must therefore assume that the agreement was made according to the testimony of the plaintiff. Assuming the existence of the agreement, the defendant became the original debtor, and the contract did not fall within the statute of frauds, because it was an original undertaking. There was no error in the charge of the trial judge, but, on the contrary, the case was properly presented to the jury by the charge. The verdict is evidently just, and fully sustained by the evidence. The judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.