alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
04/23/2008 WED 10:17 FAX 212 487 9777 ~002/003 

61 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, NY 10006 

T4 14.487.9700 F412.487.9777 WWW.WFF-LAW.COM 

April 23,2008 

Via Facsimile Only (212) 805-4258 

. , Hon. Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman 

Daniel Patrick Moylvhan United States Courthouse 

500 Pearl Street, Room 525 

New York, NY 10007 

Re: DiFrisco v. Marriott Int'l 

Docket No.: 07-CV-353 1 (CM)@CF) 

Our File No.: 104-12742-D-PAFDMS 

, . ; r . '. 

Dear Magistrate Freeman: 

Our office represents defendant Marriott in this lawsuit. 

Despite ongoing efforts to schedule the non-party deposition of Aimee Yohann, we have had no 

success. Your Order indicates that the deposition must proceed by April 30,2008. Our calendar 

clerk, Lise-Ann Kaidoo, left several messages for Ms. Yohan on April 14, 2008, regarding the 

deposition, and again on April 16,2008. Ms. Kaidoo's calls eventually went unanswered, as the 

answering machine was apparently turned off. 

Ms. Kaidoo left an additional message on April 22, 2008, again without any response from Ms. 

Yohan. 4, 

other developments, the deposition of Maniott witness Brad Wood has been scheduled as 

agreed upon between the parties, for May 14, 2008, beginning at l0:OO a.m., in Washington, );lcpiO 

D.C. 

date, time 

As per 

and location. 

your directive, we are forwarding this letter for you to "So Order" the agreed upon - 

We will report to you further as the April 30,2008, approaches for Ms. Yohan's deposition. 

SO ORDERED: DAZ ,(.$.$!bp 

-..-. 

DEBRA REEMAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTW .JI.IP~ -- A yo= LW~D LABILLIT PARTN-SH~P 

HOLMDEL, NEWJERSEY WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK GARDEN CI, NEW YORK 

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 

LONDON. ENGLAND 

Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 16 Filed 04/24/2008 Page 1 of 2
04/23/2008 WED 10: f 7 FAX 212 487 9777 

Hon. Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman 

April 23,2008 

Page 2 

Thank ou again for your ongoing attention to our case. A 

LEISCHNER & FINO, LLP 

Via Facsimile Only (212) 482-0002 

Stephen K. Toner, Esq. 

RUSSO, KEANE & TONER, LLP 

26 Broadway, 28th Floor 

New York, New York 10004 

s.toner@rktlaw.com 

Case 1:07-cv-03531-CM-DCF Document 16 Filed 04/24/2008 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 13.2  Section 906 Certificate  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Luxfer Holdings PLC, a public limited company incorporated under English law (the company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the Form 20-F) of the company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company.   Date:   March 29, 2013
/s/   Andrew Michael BeadenAndrew   Michael BeadenGroup   Finance Director
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2492

CLARENCE BRITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PERRY WHITEHEAD MARTIN, SR.; JACK BENJAMIN CRAWLEY, JR., Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-97-1007-5-H) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Britt, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Ray Wooten, WARD & SMITH, P.A., New Bern, North Carolina; Jack Benjamin Crawley, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF JACK B. CRAWLEY, JR., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Clarence Britt appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil diversity complaint as time-barred and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the districtcourt’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Britt v. Martin , No. CA-97-1007-5-H (E.D.N.C. June 30; Sept. 10, 1998). 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
#### Mary L. Stevenson, as Administratrix de Bonis Non of the Estate of James H. Stevenson, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*New York and Long Branch Railroad Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.

, *Stevenson*v. *N. Y. & Long Branch R. R. Co.,*175 App, Div. 902, affirmed.

(Argued June 6, 1918;

decided July 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 17, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of defendant. Intestate while crossing defendant appellant’s • tracks in an automobile was struck by a train and killed. It was contended that appellant was negligent owing to the failure of its flagman, who was stationed at this crossing at the time of the accident, to lower the safety gates or give any warning of the approach of the train; also in its maintenance of the crossing in such condition, owing to cars on the various tracks and other obstructions, that it was impossible for a traveler, crossing, to see an approaching train until actually upon the tracks. The answer contained a general denial and a separate defense of contributory negligence.

*Joseph M. Hartfield*for appellant.

*John Ewen for*respondent. •

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin; Cuddeback, Hogan, Cardozo and McLaughlin, JJ,
#### WOLFE v. EAKER

No. 184PC

Case below: 50 N.C. App.144

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 March 1981.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71805-71806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23487]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 
30, 2005.
    Title and OMB Number: TRICARE Dental Program (TDP) Claim Form, OMB 
Number 0720-0035.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 56,512.
    Responses Per Respondent: 62.
    Annual Responses: 3,503,744.
    Average Burden Per Response: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 875,936.
    Needs and Uses: The TDP claim form is required to gather 
information to make payment for legitimate dental claims and to assist 
in contractor surveillance and program integrity investigations and to 
audit financial transactions where the Department of Defense has a 
financial stake. The information from the claim form is also used to 
provide important cost share explanations to the beneficiary.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. John Kraemer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Kraemer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD Health, Room 10102, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should

[[Page 71806]]

be sent to Ms. Toppings, WHS/ESD/Information Management Division, 1777 
North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 22209-2133.

    Dated: November 22, 2005.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 05-23487 Filed 11-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
# C_2011056EN.01000701.xml

| 22.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 56/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/7

---

Commission communication on the body authorised to issue certificates of origin under Regulation (EC) No 891/2009

2011/C 56/03

On the basis of Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009, published in
  Official Journal of the European Union L 254 of 26 September 2009, an import tariff quota has been opened for sugar originating in Australia.

Official Journal of the European Union

Under Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009, the release for free circulation of the goods imported under that quota is conditional upon presentation of a certificate of origin.

The following authority is authorised to issue certificates of origin under the Regulation:

| Chamber of Commerce Et. |
| --- |
| Industry Queensland |
| Industry House |
| 375 Wicham Terrace |
| Brisbane Q 4000 |
| AUSTRALIA |
| Tel. +07 3842 2244 |
| Fax +07 3832 3195 |
| E-mail: info@cciq.com.au |

Chamber of Commerce Et.

Industry Queensland

Industry House

375 Wicham Terrace

Brisbane Q 4000

AUSTRALIA

Tel. +07 3842 2244

Fax +07 3832 3195

E-mail: info@cciq.com.au

---
<PAGE>

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 amended Annual Report of One Voice Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Rahoul Sharan, 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 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by section 9.06 has been
provided to One Voice and will be retained by One Voice and furnished to the
Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Dated: July 1, 2005



                                                 /s/ Rahoul Sharan
                                                 -----------------
                                                 Name: Rahoul Sharan
                                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### FIDELITY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF HICKORY v. CECIL H. JARRETT COMPANY, INCORPORATED.

(Filed 21 October, 1964.)

Negligence §§ 1, 24a—

Evidence that a rug which defendant had cleaned with permission of plaintiff for the purpose of demonstrating a rug cleaning compound, shrunk and developed numerous brownish spots and became sticky to the touch, with testimony of an expert in the field that the damage resulted from an excessive amount of detergent in the cleaning compound, together with evidence as to the amount of the damage, *held*sufficient to take the case to the jury.

Appeal by defendant from *Huskins, J.,*January 1964 Regular Term of Catawba.

Action for damages. Plaintiff alleges that defendant negligently spoiled the carpeting in its place of business by applying excessive quantities of an improperly diluted soap solution to the carpet and then pouring large amounts of water on it in an effort to remove the solution.

Plaintiff’s evidence tended to show the following facts: On March 10, 1962, defendant requested and received permission to demonstrate a rug-cleaning compound, known as Knap-Back, on plaintiff’s carpet. On March 12, 1962, the carpet was still damp from the cleaning; it had shrunk and pulled away from the walls. Numerous brownish spots, some as large as five feet in diameter, had appeared on it throughout, and the carpet was sticky to the touch. Defendant attempted to remove the detergent left in the carpet on March 10th by applying water to it, using a floor-scrubbing machine with a revolving brush “to activate the suds and a wet vacuum pick-up machine to remove the suds.” The treatment was ineffectual and two years later the carpet was still sticky. Any application of water still raises lather from the soap left in the carpet. Dry compounds will no longer remove dirt and the carpet has a very dingy appearance. To apply more water to the carpet now would cause it to shrink again. Prior to defendant’s attempt to clean the carpet it was worth $2,600.00; immediately afterwards, only *625$250.00. Ted Walker, whom defendant admitted to be an expert in “the installation and knowledge of carpets,” testified, without objection, that he had an opinion as to what caused the brown spots on the carpet. He said: “It appears to me that there was an excessive amount of detergent and not the proper amount of water mixed with it and the browning out is what we call detergent burn caused by improper mixture. Detergent burn would have a tendency to weaken the carpet fibers and take some of the oil out of the wool and the long range result would be a break-down of the fibers.”

The defendant offered no evidence. The jury awarded plaintiff damages in the amount of $1,400.00. From judgment on the verdict, defendant appealed.

*Keener & Butner for plaintiff.*

*Come & Warlick for defendant.*

Pee CuRiam.

Defendant’s one assignment of error is the failure of the court to grant its motions of nonsuit timely made. The evidence was clearly sufficient to sustain plaintiff’s allegations and withstand defendant’s motions.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.2


          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS


         As independent petroleum consultants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of our report included in this Form 10-K into Barrett
Resources Corporation's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3,
File Nos. 333-51985, 333-51461 and 333-85809, and on Form S-8, File Nos.
333-29669, 333-18311, 333-29577, 333-02529 and 333-79849.



                                               RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

Denver, Colorado
March 27, 2000
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 T/R Systems, Inc. (the "Company") on
form 10-K for the year ending January 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to such officer's knowledge:

         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 as of the dates and for the periods
                  expressed in the Report.


Date: April 17, 2003



/s/ Michael E. Kohlsdorf
------------------------
Michael E. Kohlsdorf
Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Lyle W. Newkirk
-----------------------
Lyle W. Newkirk
Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certifications are being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and are not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 31163 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

DENAIR RILEY , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:11

- CR

- 235

- 11

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Pursuant to a plea agreement, Denair Riley pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, 280 grams or more of
cocaine base , and 500 grams or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in violat ion of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and (B), and 846; and us e of a communication facility (telephone) to facilitate that crime , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)

. The plea agreement contained, inter alia , a provision that, if Riley cooperated

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 7, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-31163 Document: 00513456412 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2016No. 14

- 31163

2 and provided “substantial assistance”, the Government could , “in its
discretion” , move for a sentence reduction

. At sentencing, the Government declined to exercise that discretion, citing Riley’s lack of cooperation. The court sentenced him to the statutory mandatory minimum of 240 months’ imprisonment. In chal lenging that sentence, Riley does not contend his plea agreement was unknowing or involuntary . Instead, he asserts only that the Government breached the agreement by failing , based on his substantial assistance, to move for a
downward departure. He ackno wledges, however, that the Government
retained discretion to move for such a departure

. A court cannot grant a downward departure for substantial assistance
unless the Government so moves

. E.g. , United States v. Krumnow , 476 F.3d 294, 297 (5th Cir. 2007) . “The refusal to move for downward departure is reviewable only for unconstitutional motivation when [the Government’s] sole discretion is retained.” United States v. Aderholt , 87 F.3d 740, 743 (5th Cir. 1996). Riley fails to claim an unconstitutional motivation, asserting only that his refusal to cooperate was because he feared for his safety.
AFFIRMED. Case: 14-31163 Document: 00513456412 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2016
Exhibit 10.1
 VECTOR GROUP LTD.
 SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN
(as amended and restated April 24, 2008)
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE




---



##### 



-2-




---



##### 



-3-




---



##### 



-4-




---



##### 



st
    -5-




---



##### 



Designation of Participants
 Eligibility for Benefits
 
 Amount of Employer Contribution
 -6-




---



##### 



Attainment of Normal Retirement Date
 Disability
 Death
 Termination of Service
 -7-




---



##### 



.
 Exclusivity
 
 Normal Payment Method and Recipients of Payments
 -8-




---



##### 



th
 Distributions to Specified Employees The Wall Street Journal
 Distribution Limitations
 -9-




---



##### 



Determination of Payment
 Plan Administration
 
 Source of Benefits
 -10-




---



##### 



No Guarantee of Employment
 Unfunded Plan
 
  -11-




---



##### 



Effective Date
 Amendment and Termination
 Plan Sponso
 
 Initial Claim
 -12-




---



##### 



Review
 
 Payment to Representatives
 -13-




---



##### 



Timing of Payments
 Withholding, etc
 Governing Law
 Gender and Number
 -14-




---



##### 



Binding Effect
 Captions
 Severability
 Communications nd
 Interpretation and Administration
 -15-




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 VECTOR GROUP LTD./s/ Richard J. LampenBy:  Authorized Signatory -16-




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 Projected AnnualSingle Life AnnuityParticipant
    
    Retirement Benefit
    
    Participation DateBennett S. LeBow
    
    $
    2,524,163
    
    
    1/1/02Howard M. Lorber
    
    $
    1,051,875
    
    
    1/1/02Howard M. Lorber
(supplemental benefit)
    
    $
    735,682
    
    
    1/1/10Ronald J. Bernstein
    
    $
    438,750
    
    
    1/1/02Gregory Sulin
    
    $
    148,500
    
    
    1/1/02Richard J. Lampen
    
    $
    250,000
    
    
    1/1/04Marc N. Bell
    
    $
    200,000
    
    
    1/1/04J. Bryant Kirkland III
    
    $
    202,500
    
    
    1/1/04Dr. Anthony Albino
    
    $
    175,000
    
    
    1/1/04
 -17-
#### STATE v. McNEILL

No. 20 PC.

Case below: 28 N.C. App. 125.

Petition for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 2 March 1976. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 2 March 1976.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. *J.*M. PARKER.

(Filed 29 November, 1967.)

Assault and Battery §§ 5, 15—

In a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, an instruction that the jury might find an intent to kill if the defendant intended either to kill or inflict great bodily harm, *held*prejudicial error, since a finding by the jury that the defendant intended only to inflict bodily harm would be insufficient to sustain a conviction under the felony indictment.

Appeal by defendant from *Crissman, J.,*20 July 1967 Criminal Session of Guilford (High Point Division).

Defendant was convicted of felonious assault upon a bill of indictment which charged that he unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill, shot one Donald Riggs in the left chest with a deadly weapon, a 22-caliber revolver, thereby inflicting upon him serious injury not resulting in death. From a prison sentence of not less than 18 nor more than 30 months, defendant appealed.

*Thomas Wade Bruton, Attorney General; William W. Melvin, Assistant Attorney General; T. Buie Costen, Staff Attorney, for the State.*

*Morgan, Byerly, Post & Keziah by David M. Watkins for defendant appellant.*

PeR Curiam.

Both the State and defendant offered evidence. The State’s evidence, which the jury accepted, ■ was sufficient to *143establish defendant’s guilt as charged in the indictment; defendant’s evidence tended to show that defendant shot Eiggs in defense of himself, his wife, and his habitation. Defendant does not contend that he was entitled to a nonsuit. As warranting a new trial, however, he assigns as error the following portion of the trial judge’s charge to the jury:

*. .*[A]nd, so, intent to kill is the intent which exists in the mind of a person at the time he commits the assault, or the criminal act, intentionally and without justification or excuse to kill his victim, or to inflict great bodily harm. . . .”

In *State v. Ferguson,*261 N.C. 558, 135 S.E. 2d 626, an instruction identical with the above was held to be prejudicial error, “for it would allow the jury to find an intent to kill if the defendant intended either to kill or to inflict great bodily harm. But if the jury found only an intent to inflict great bodily harm, this would be insufficient to sustain the felony charge since the intent to kill is an essential element of such charge.” *Id.*at 561, 135 S.E. 2d at 628.

For the error indicated, there must be a

New trial.
#### STATE v. JEFFRIES

No. 59P82.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 269.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 30 March 1982. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 30 March 1982.