alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gary Pearce, Appellant, v Booth Memorial Hospital et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beerman, J.), dated May 3, 1988, as denied his motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars so as to include a claim for damages to compensate for custodial, supervisory and housekeeping care, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court dated August 30, 1988, as upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated May 3, 1988, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated August 30, 1988, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated August 30, 1988, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

This action is premised on generally stated acts of malpractice which allegedly occurred in 1979. Neither in the original bills of particulars served in 1982 nor in an amended bill served in 1984, the year the note of issue and statement of readiness were filed, did the plaintiff allege as items of special damage the cost of custodial, supervisory and housekeeping care. It was not until November 1987 after jury selection was aborted and adjournments granted, that the plaintiff at*554tempted to serve what he labeled a "supplemental bill” which included a $3,000,000 special damage claim for custodial, supervisory and housekeeping care from 1979 to the present. When the defendants rejected the "supplemental bill”, the plaintiff unsuccessfully sought leave to amend his bills of particulars so as to include that $3,000,000 special damage claim.

The plaintiff’s present assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, he had no right to serve the disputed bill of particulars pursuant to CPLR 3043 (b). Since the plaintiff was not merely updating allegations of special damages previously asserted but was rather adding a wholly new category of special damages, leave to serve the disputed bill was necessary *(see, Kurnitz v Croft,*91 AD2d 972; *cf, March v St. Volodymyr Ukranian Catholic Church,*117 AD2d 864). Given the timing of the motion, the age of the case, and the lack of acceptable excuse for the delay in raising these allegations of additional damages, we conclude that the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant the plaintiff leave to amend was a proper exercise of discretion *(see, Alexander v Seligman,*131 AD2d 528; *Matter of Schwartz v New York City Tr. Auth.,*104 AD2d 370; *see also, March v St. Volodymyr Ukranian Catholic Church, supra,*at 864). Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
PricewaterhouseCoopers SAAvenue Giuseppe-Motta 50Case postale 28951211 Genève 2Telephone +41 22 748 51 11Fax +41 22 748 51 15
 
 Consent of Independent Accountants
 
 
 We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S8 of Serono SA (SEC File No. 333-12480) of our reports dated March 1, 2004 relating to the consolidated financial statements, the holding company financial statements and the financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 20-F.
 
 
 PricewaterhouseCoopers S.A.
 
 /s/ M. Aked
/s/ H-J. HoferM. Aked
H-J. HoferGeneva, March 22, 2004
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before May 29, 2001 to be assured of consideration.

## Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)

*OMB Number:*                     New.                

*Form Number:*                     None.                

*Type of Review:*                     New collection.                

*Title:*                     Money Service Business Program Response Form.                

*Description:*                     This is a telephone survey to be conducted with previously-identified contacts at targeted money service businesses. Survey asks respondents to report methods used to educate employees about regulations and provide general organizational information.                

*Respondents:*                     Business or other for-profit.                

*Estimated Number of Respondents:*                     600.                

*Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent:*                     15 minutes.                

*Frequency of Response:*                     Other (one time only).                

*Estimated Total Reporting Burden:*                     90 hours.                

*Clearance Officer:*                     Lois K. Holland, (202) 622-1563, Departmental Offices, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.                

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                

Lois K. Holland, 

Departmental Reports Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 01-10301 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
exv10w5wa






Exhibit 10.5(a)



June 9, 2009




Drury Capital Inc.

c/o Drury Capital Services

47 Hulfish Street — Suite 340

Princeton, NJ 08542


Attention: Mr. Bernard Drury




     Re: Management Agreement Renewal


Dear Mr. Drury:



We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pool to which
reference is made below (the “Management Agreement”). We are extending the term of the Management
Agreement through June 30, 2010 and all other provisions of the Management Agreement will remain
unchanged.





	 	•	 	Citigroup Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	CMF Drury Master Fund
	 
	 	•	 	CMF Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P.




Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it
to the attention of Ms. Jennifer Magro at the address above or fax to 212-793-1986. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-559-5046.



Very truly yours,



CITIGROUP MANAGED FUTURES LLC




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Jennifer Magro
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Jennifer Magro	 	 
	 

	 	Chief Financial Officer & Director	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	DRURY CAPITAL INC.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Bernard V. Drury	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Print Name: Bernard V. Drury	 	 






JM/sr
Motion Granted, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed, and Memorandum 

Opinion filed August 27, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-19-00142-CV

IN RE CITY OF HOUSTON, ET AL., Relators 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

333rd District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-35252 & 2015-35252A 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On February 20, 2019, relators the City of Houston, et al., filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus complaining of a severance order, signed October 12, 2018, and 

a final judgment, signed October 12, 2018 (“the Original Proceeding”). On March 

26, 2019, the court consolidated the Original Proceeding with a related appeal: No. 

14-18-00896-CV, City of Houston et al. v. Houston Municipal Employees Pension 

System (“the Appeal”). 
2 

On August 16, 2019, the parties filed a “Joint Motion to Dismiss Petition for 

Writ of Mandamus and Abate Appeal.”1 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion to 

dismiss the mandamus petition is granted. The Original Proceeding is dismissed. 

The Appeal will be abated by separate order. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot. 

 

1

 Although the Appeal and the Original Proceeding were consolidated, both cause numbers remain 

open. The motion bears the cause number of the Appeal but not the cause number of the Original 

Proceeding. The substance of the motion makes clear the parties seek relief in the Original 

Proceeding. Accordingly, we treat the motion as having been filed in the Original Proceeding.
CAUSE NOS. 12-19-00123-CR, 12-19-00124-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 

TYLER, TEXAS 

ALEXANDRO CAMACHO, } APPEALED FROM 114TH DISTRICT 

APPELLANT

V. } COURT IN AND FOR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, } SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

ORDER

Came on for review the status of the instant appeals, and the same having been 

considered, it appears that Appellant is not currently represented by counsel.

On April 5, 2019, the Docketing Statement was due to be filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 32.2. On 

April 5, 2019, this Court notified Appellant that a Docketing Statement was to be filed and gave 

him until April 15, 2019, to file it. Thereafter, Appellant filed a defective Docketing Statement. 

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 32.2 it is ORDERED that the Honorable Christi J. Kennedy, 

Judge of the 114th District Court of Smith County, shall immediately conduct a hearing to 

determine the cause of Appellant’s failure to file a compliant Docketing Statement and whether 

the Appellant has abandoned the appeals.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the trial court determine whether: (1) Appellant is 

indigent and entitled to the appointment of counsel on appeal; (2) Appellant has sufficient funds 

to retain counsel; or (3) Appellant desires to represent himself on appeal.

It is ADDITIONALLY ORDERED that once findings are made as to the above issues, 

the trial court shall appoint counsel, give Appellant an appropriate deadline for retaining counsel, 

or administer the appropriate warnings concerning the dangers of self-representation, in 

accordance with its findings and the court shall also take necessary action to insure the prompt 

filing of a proper Docketing Statement with this Court.
It is FINALLY ORDERED that a supplemental record containing the court’s findings of 

fact and conclusions of law and any appropriate order(s) attendant thereto be certified to this 

Court on or before May 13, 2019.

WITNESS the Honorable James T. Worthen, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, 12th

Court of Appeals District of Texas, at Tyler.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at my office this 11th

day of April 2019, A.D.

________________________________

KATRINA MCCLENNY, CLERK

12TH COURT OF APPEALS
#### QUACKENBOS, Appellant, v. MINTON, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

April 13, 1894.)

Action by Nicholas Quackenbos against Grace C. Minton. G. W. Weiffenbach, for appellant. H. H. Gibbs, for respondent.

No opinion. Order reversed, without costs, and case remitted to special term for decision on the merits.
##### 



Exhibit 10.17
 Ixia
Summary of Compensation for Non-Employee Members
of the Board of Directors and its Committees
 1.    Board of DirectorsAnnual retainer (except Chairman)
    
    $
    35,000Chairmans annual retainer
    
    $
    47,000Fee for attending meeting
    
    $
    2,0002.    Compensation CommitteeAnnual retainer (except Chairman)
    
    $
    9,000Chairmans annual retainer
    
    $
    12,000Fee for attending a meeting
    
    $
    1,0003.    Audit CommitteeAnnual retainer (except Chairman)
    
    $
    10,000Chairmans annual retainer
    
    $
    20,000Fee for attending a meeting
    
    $
    1,5004.    Nominating and Corporate Governance CommitteeAnnual retainer (except Chairman)
    
    $
    5,000Chairmans annual retainer
    
    $
    7,000Fee for attending a meeting
    
    $
    1,0005.    Strategic Planning CommitteeAnnual retainer (except Chairman)
    
    $
    5,000Chairmans annual retainer
    
    $
    7,000Fee for attending a meeting
    
    $
    1,000
** **

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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)**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Intermec, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ended July 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry D. Brady, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, that:

(1)          TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ Larry D. Brady         |     |
|----------------------------|----------|
| Larry D. Brady             |     |
| *Chief  Executive Officer* | * * |
| August 9, 2006             |     |

 

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Secured Data, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for
the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, Jingan Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report 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.

Date: June 17, 2005


/S/ Jingan Wang

Jingan Wang,

Chief Executive Officer
Mortgage Proof of Claim Attachment (12/23)

If you file a claim secured by a security interest in the debtor’s principal residence, you must use this form as an attachment to your proof of claim. See separate instructions.

Official Form 410A Mortgage Proof of Claim Attachment page 1 of __ 

Part 1: Mortgage and Case Information Part 2: Total Debt Calculation Part 3: Arrearage as of Date of the Petition Part 4: Monthly Mortgage Payment

Case number: ____________________ Principal balance: __________ Principal due: ____________ Principal & interest: _____________

Debtor 1: ____________________ Interest due: __________ Interest due: ____________ Monthly escrow: _____________

Debtor 2: ____________________ Fees, costs due: __________ Prepetition fees due: ____________ Private mortgage 

insurance: _____________

Last 4 digits to identify: ___ ___ ___ ___ Escrow deficiency for 

funds advanced: __________

Escrow deficiency for funds 

advanced: ____________

Total monthly 

payment: _____________

Creditor: ____________________ Less total funds on hand: – _________ Projected escrow shortage: ____________

Servicer: ____________________ Total debt: __________ Less funds on hand: – ___________

Fixed accrual/daily 

simple interest/other: ____________________ Total prepetition arrearage: ____________

Part 5 : Loan Payment History from First Date of Default

Account Activity How Funds Were Applied/Amount Incurred Balance After Amount Received or Incurred

A.

Date

B.

Contractual 

payment 

amount

C.

Funds 

received

D.

Amount 

incurred

E.

Description

F.

Contractual 

due date

G.

Prin, int & 

esc past due 

balance

H.

Amount 

to 

principal

I.

Amount 

to 

interest

J.

Amount 

to 

escrow

K.

Amount 

to fees or 

charges

L.

Unapplied 

funds

M.

Principal 

balance

N.

Accrued 

interest 

balance

O.

Escrow 

balance

P.

Fees / 

Charges 

balance

Q.

Unapplied 

funds 

balance
Mortgage Proof of Claim Attachment: Additional Page (12/23)

Case number:

Debtor 1:

Official Form 410A Mortgage Proof of Claim Attachment page __ of __ 

Part 5 : Loan Payment History from First Date of Default

Account Activity How Funds Were Applied/Amount Incurred Balance After Amount Received or Incurred

A.

Date

B.

Contractual 

payment 

amount

C.

Funds 

received

D.

Amount 

incurred

E.

Description

F.

Contractual 

due date

G.

Prin, int & 

esc past due 

balance

H.

Amount 

to 

principal

I.

Amount 

to 

interest

J.

Amount 

to 

escrow

K.

Amount 

to fees or 

charges

L.

Unapplied 

funds

M.

Principal 

balance

N.

Accrued 

interest 

balance

O.

Escrow 

balance

P.

Fees / 

Charges 

balance

Q.

Unapplied 

funds 

balance
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60116

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CHRISTOPHER LONNELL BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:95CR14PS

- - - - - - - - - -

September 18, 1996

Before REAVLEY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Brown appeals from his conviction and sentence

for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g). Brown contends that: 1) the district court erred by

accepting expert testimony from an agent with the Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) on the issue of the place of

manufacture of the firearm; 2) that the evidence was not

sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and that the district
No. 96-60116

- 2 -

court should have granted his motion for judgment as a matter of

law; and 3) that the district court erred by denying him a

reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. 

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties

and find no reversible error. The district court did not abuse

its discretion by accepting the expert testimony of the ATF

agent. See United States v. Shaw, 920 F.2d 1225, 1229 (5th Cir.

1991). The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find

Brown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v.

Polk, 56 F.3d 613, 619 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did

not clearly err by denying Brown a reduction in his offense level

for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Watkins,

911 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.
----

**EXHIBIT      32-2**

**CERTIFICATE      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.      1350)**

|   | 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/                 Harel Goldstein            |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                |   |
| Harel                Goldstein                      |
| Director                and Chief Financial Officer |
| August                22, 2006                      |

----
1

Dtdmcdp1TisN

culture 1776–1999

830

4

Cormick reaper

ented

1840

1840’sThe growing use of factory-made agriculturalmachinery increasedfarmer’s need for cashand encouraged commercial farming

1850’sCommercial corn andwheat belts began todevelop

1862U.S. Department ofAgriculture established1862The drive for agricultural education culminatedin the passage of theMorrill Land GrantCollege Act 1862Homestead Act gavefree public land to persons willing to farm it1865-70The sharecropping system in the Southreplaced the old slaveplantation system

1850 1860 1870

1874Availability of barbedwire allowed fencing ofrangeland, ending eraof unrestricted, openrange grazing

1887 Hatch ExperimentStation Act set upFederal-State cooperation in agriculturalresearch

1890Second Morrill Act broadened land -grant programand set up funding forblack land-grant schools 1890Census showed that thefrontier settlement erawas over1890First Federal MeatInspection Act1896 TED Rural Free Delivery (RFD) started

1880 1890

USDA INSPEC

5-70

volution in agricultur

echnology brought

atly increased yields

 more specialized,

ital-intensive farms

6

ional School Lunch

7

neral Agreement on

ffs and Trade

ATT) established

king procedures

 substantially

uced tariffs between

mber nations

1954Agricultural TradeDevelopment andAssistance Act (P.L.

480) facilitated agricultural exports andforeign aid1954-55Rural developmentprogram begins1956Soil Bank Programauthorized

940 1950 1960

1964Food Stamp Act andWar on Poverty

1970Environmental QualityImprovement Act

1980’sBiotechnology becamea viable technique forimproving crop andlivestock products 1985Food Security Act lowered government farmsupports, promotedexports, and set up the Conservation ReserveProgram

1990Food, Agriculture,Conservation, andTrade Act and OmnibusBudget ReconciliationAct increased farmers’flexibility in plantingunder governmentprograms1993Revised GeneralAgreement on Tariffsand Trade (GATT) andnew North AmericanFree Trade Agreement(NAFTA) lowered tradebarriers1996Federal AgricultureImprovement andReform Act revisedfarm programs toincrease reliance onmarket signals

997

SDA issues Civil Rights

ction Team report, offerng 92 recommendations

or overcoming past

njustices

998

ACCP is implemented

o target and reduce the

resence of pathogens

n meat and poultry

999

rop in many commodiies prices, combined with

isastrous weather in

any parts of the country,

aused increased

emand for USDA farmrograms

999 

he "Roadless Initiative"

s implemented to preerve roadless tracts in

ational Forests, securng fish and wildlife habiat and protecting natural

esources

1970 1980 1990–99

1UAifi1Htpiitr
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shon Conner WILLIAMS, a/k/a Baby Boy, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7732.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 4, 2011.

Decided: May 19, 2011.

Shon Conner Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Nancy Chastain Wicker, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Shon Conner Williams appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See United States v. Williams,*No. 0:99-cr-00659-CMC-7 (D.S.C. Dec. 6, 2010). We dispense with 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.*