alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S07Y0592.

#### IN THE MATTER OF RENATE DOWNS MOODY.

(642 SE2d 17)

Per curiam.

This matter is before the Court on the Petition for Voluntary Discipline filed by Respondent Renate Downs Moody in which she admits to violating Rules 1.3 and 3.5 (c) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct (see Bar Rule 4-102 (d), and Bar Rule 4-104). In her petition Moody requests a six-month suspension with conditions. The State Bar has no objection to the petition.

Moody admits that she was appointed to represent two clients post-conviction but in both matters failed to pursue properly the clients’ cases. She also admits that she appeared in court intoxicated and unable to represent a client. In mitigation of her behavior, we find that Moody has diabetes and a bi-polar condition, and on and off consumes alcohol heavily to self-medicate. During one of the cases at issue here Moody was hospitalized and told by her doctor not to return to work.

We accept Moody’s petition and hereby order that she be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months from the date of this opinion with reinstatement only after she provides to the State Bar’s Office of General Counsel a written certification from a psychiatrist or psychologist licensed to practice in Georgia that she has no mental condition or impairment that would affect her ability to practice law.

*609Decided February 5, 2007.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jenny K. Mittelman, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Six-month suspension with conditions.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### In the Matter of David Burr, Appellant, v Timothy B. Howard, Sheriff of Erie County, Respondent.

Submitted January 17, 2012;

decided March 27, 2012

Reported below, 2011 NY Slip Op 92347CU).

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the December 2011 Appellate Division order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Theron Resource
Group (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 29, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Periodic Report), I, Jerry R. Satchwell, Chief Financial 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:

|3. | the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
    and                                 
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                          
|4. | the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: July 7, 2008

/s/              
Jerry R. Satchwell

Jerry R. Satchwell Chief Financial
Officer

---
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer  I, Joseph Levi, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Green Mountain Recovery, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  Date: November 10, 2009  /s/ Joseph Levi Joseph Levi Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Red Sun Mining, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Matthew Taylor,
Chief Financial 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 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/ Matthew Taylor
-----------------------------
Matthew Taylor
Chief Financial Officer
December 11, 2008

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2019280EN.01001201.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/12

---

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Gerona — Spain) — OD v Ryanair

(C-646/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Determination of the court having jurisdiction to hear an application for compensation in respect of a delayed flight - Article 26 - Implied prorogation - Requirement that the defendant enter an appearance)

(2019/C 280/14)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 1 de Gerona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OD

Defendant: Ryanair D.A.C.

Operative part of the order

Article 26(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in a case, such as that in the main proceedings, where the defendant has not submitted observations and has not appeared.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 95-31296

_____________________________________

AMERICAS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

APACHE CORPORATION, FALCON DRILLING COMPANY, INC.,

FALCON DRILLING SERVICES, INC. and FALCON MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(95-cv-863)

______________________________________________________

August 12, 1996

Before DAVIS, JONES and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in

its careful memorandum ruling of August 23, 1995, we affirm the

court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. In

summary we agree with the district court that Louisiana Civil Code

Article 3540 authorizes enforcement of the parties' choice-of-law

provision unless the application of that law conflicts with the

public policy of the state whose law would apply in the absence of
2

the choice-of-law provision. We agree with the district court's

analysis that Texas law would apply in the absence of the parties'

choice-of-law provision. Finally, we disagree with appellant that

Matte v. Zapata Offshore Co., 784 F.2d 628 (5th Cir. 1986),

requires a different result. In Matte, the accident and injury

occurred on the Outer Continental Shelf and the Outer Continental

Shelf Lands Act directed the application of Louisiana law. Id. at

630. Thus, the question was whether the application of the general

maritime law under the a choice-of-law provision violated the

public policy of the State of Louisiana. The court answered this

question in the affirmative because the general maritime law

included none of the prohibitions against indemnity agreements

Louisiana required in the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act. In

today's case, the question is whether the public policy of the

State of Texas is offended by the application of the choice-of-law

provision. The parties agree that answer to that question is in

the negative.

For the above reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
#### YU FU CHEN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 10-2495.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 27, 2010.

Filed: Nov. 1, 2010.

Benjamin B. Xue, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, Allison Frayer, Pegah Vakili, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Yu Fu Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We conclude that Chen has waived review of the CAT claim by not challenging the denial of CAT relief before the BIA. *See Ateka v. Ashcroft,*384 F.3d 954, 957 (8th Cir.2004). We also conclude that the denial of asylum and withholding of removal was supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. *See Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey,*551 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.
#### Sheeder *v.*Shannon.1 Sheeder *v.*Bicking.

*Circuit Court, E.*D. *Pennsylvania.*

October 10, 1885.

Patents for Inventions—Infringement.

Letters patent 210,714 were granted to complainant for a combination of heating pipes, and metallic plates applied thereto, constructed with flexible tubes, gum tubing, or suitable rock-joints, so as to permit the elevation or lowering of the pipes without interfering with the circulation of the steam through them. *Meld,*that these flexible joints must be regarded as distinguishing and essential features of the construction of the pipes, and that a machine of which hinge-joints are not a constituent is not an infringement of said combination

In Equity.

*S. W. Pennypaeker,*for complainant.

*H. M. Dechert,*for respondent.

1

 Reported-by C. B. Taylor, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.

Per Curiam.

The second claim of the complainant’s patent Is the only one in controversy here. It is for a combination of heating pipes, D, and metallic plates, E, “applied thereto, forming rests for the boards to be dried, and causing the heat from said pipes to be distributed uniformly over said boards, as set forth.” Bef erring to the body of the specifications, the pipes, D, are “set forth” as constructed with flexible tubes, gum tubing, or suitable rock-joints, so as to permit the elevation and lowering of the pipes, D, without interfering with the circulation of the steam through them. These flexible joints must be regarded as distinguishing and essential features of the construction of the pipes, D; and, in view of the prior state of the art, must be held to be the specific pipes designated in the second claim of the patent. Hinge-joints are not a constituent of the ma*825■chine used by the defendant, and hence are not an infringement of the patented combination.

The bill must therefore be dismissed, with costs.

A similar decree will be entered in the case of *Sheeder*v. *Bicking.*
**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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AFH Holding
      III, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, I, Amir F.
      Heshmatpour, President of the Company hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:





1.
            Such
                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2008,
                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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
                quarter ending June 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material respects,
                the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.








Dated:
      August 19, 2008





/s/
      Amir F. Heshmatpour


Amir
      F.
      Heshmatpour


President


(Principal
      Executive Officer)
ex-10.htm


 












Amendment No. 2


to


Executive Employment Agreement












This Amendment No. 2 is made as of September 17, 2010, by and between Neal J. Keating (“Executive”) and Kaman Corporation ("Kaman" or "Company").







WITNESSETH:







WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Executive Employment Agreement which has most recently been amended as of January 1, 2010 (the “Employment Agreement”) and which is scheduled to expire on this date unless renewed by the parties; and







WHEREAS, the parties desire to renew the Employment Agreement in accordance with its terms and subject to the provisions of this Amendment;







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Amendment, Company and Executive agree as follows:







1.           Section 7(g) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:







“(g)           RETIREMENT.  Upon remaining employed with the Company until at least the attainment of age 65 or such other age at or after age 62 as shall be approved by the Committee (the “Retirement Eligibility Date”).  Nothing herein shall be construed as limiting the Executive’s right, if any, to terminate employment prior to the Retirement Eligibility Date and receive compensation and benefits, as applicable, provided under the respective terms of the Company’s benefit plans.”


 


2.           Section 8(e)(5) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“(5)           the Executive shall be considered to have “retired” on the Executive’s date of termination of employment with the Company on or following the Executive’s Retirement Eligibility Date for purposes of any plans, programs, agreements or arrangements with the Company or its affiliates; provided however, that the Executive shall not be treated as “retired” due to employment termination prior to age sixty-five with respect to any non-qualified deferred compensation plan subject to Section 409A of the Code to the extent that doing so would result in a violation thereof.”


 


 




  





- 1 -











  






3.           Section 10 (Section 4999 Excise Tax) of the Employment Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety.


 


4.           Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Employment Agreement.


 


5.           Except as expressly modified herein, all provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.







In Witness Whereof, Company and Executive have executed this Amendment.





	  	  	  
	  	  	
/s/ Neal J. Keating


	  	  	
Neal J. Keating


	  	  	  
	  	  	
9/16/10


	  	  	
Date


	  	  	  
	
Acknowledged and Agreed this 16th day of

	  	  
	
September, 2010

	  	  
	  	  	  
	
Kaman Corporation

	  	  
	  	  	  
	
/s/ Candace A. Clark

	  	  
	
By:  Candace A. Clark

	  	  
	
Its:  Senior Vice President & CLO

	  	  









  





- 2 -
ex10-2.htm









EXHIBIT 10.2







GEORGETOWN SAVINGS BANK


INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN


GOALS FOR JULY 1, 2010 – DECEMBER 31, 2010























	
Organizational Level:

	
  Executive

	  	  
	  	  	  	  
	
Employee:

	
Joseph W. Kennedy

	  	
Incentive Target (6-months):    11% ($6,935)


	  	  	  	  
	
Title:

	
Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer

	  	  










The dollar figures presented in this example are estimates.  Incentive payments will be based on the employee’s base compensation, which includes actual straight-time pay (excludes overtime), jury duty, holiday, vacation, personal and sick pay for the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010.


 


















Minimum Thresholds




In order to receive payment for achievement of the goals listed below, the following thresholds must be met:



	
  

	
1.

	
CAMELS ratings must be at a rating of “2” or better at all time during the Plan Year.  This will be measured by both internal audit results and OTS rating.








	
  

	
2.

	
Asset Quality must be at a level of “Satisfactory” or better at all time during the Plan Year.  This will be measured by both internal audit results and OTS rating.












Tier 1: Bank-wide Performance







GOAL: #1: Profitability – Achieve Return on Assets (ROA)







 Payout Percentage: 50% = $3,467








	
 


Goals

	
Payout


	
95% of budget

	
$1,156


	
At budget

	
$2,311


	
110% of budget

	
$3,467


	
Stretch Goal

	  
	
Every .05% over 110% of Budget

	
$1,156

















Tier 2: Team Performance







 


GOAL #2: Profitability – Achieve Net Interest Margin Percentage


 







Payout Percentage: 25% = $1,734








	
 


Goals

	
Payout


	
96% of budget

	
$   578


	
At budget

	
$1,156


	
104% of budget

	
$1,734


	
Stretch Goal

	  
	
Every .15% over 104% of  budget

	
$   578





















  





  











  























GOAL #3: Profitability – Achieve Non-Interest Expense Level







Payout Percentage: 25% = $1,734








	
 


Goals

	
Payout


	
2% above budget

	
$   578


	
At budget

	
$1,156


	
2% below budget

	
$1,734


	
Stretch Goal

	  
	
Every $69,442 below 2% below budget

	
$   578


















Tier 3: Individual Performance










Goals:  None




 


Minimum Level of Expectations


To be eligible for this Incentive Compensation Plan the employee must meet the following:



	
  

	
·

	
Performing at a satisfactory level or above,








	
  

	
·

	
Not on written warning, and








	
  

	
·

	
Actively employed at the time of the incentive payment.
Exhibit 32.2   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 MERIDIAN ACQUISITION CORPORATION  (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report"), I, Nicholas Lahanas, Chief Financial 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  /s/Nicholas LahanasNicholas Lahanas, Chief Financial Officer November 28, 2007
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
10.24

     

    Summary
of Line of Credit Loan Agreement

     

    [Unofficial
Translation]

     

    Parties:

     

    Industrial
Bank Co., Ltd., Tianjin Branch (“Industrial Bank”)

     

    Tianjin
Shengkai Industrial Technology Development Co., Ltd.(“Shengkai”)

     

    Date:

     

    December
10, 2009

     

    Material
Terms:

     

    Shengkai
and Industrial Bank entered into a line of credit loan agreement (“LOC
Agreement”) with a valid period of December 10, 2009 to October 22, 2010. The
maximum amount Shengkai may draw down on the line of credit is RMB 1,500,000 in
the form of a short-term cash flow loan at an interest rate of no lower than
110% of the base interest rate or in the form of a bank acceptance draft.
Industrial Bank may unilaterally change the maximum amount available under the
line of credit and the term of the line of credit. Industrial Bank may
accelerate the payment of loan upon the failure of Shengkai to fulfill any of
its contractual obligations. The line of credit loan is secured by properties
owned by Shengkai and the personal properties and income of Wang Chen and Guo
Wei through a mortgage agreement and two personal guarantees.