alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Neil Gerst, Plaintiff, v Sheryl Gerst, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Trial Term, Suffolk County,

April 9, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Allen L. Pullin*for plaintiff. *Long, Tuminello, Besso, Seligman & Quinlan (Diane Smits Lein*of counsel), for defendant.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Morton I. Willen, J.

Plaintiff herein moves for an order vacating an income execution served on him pursuant to CPLR 5241. Plaintiff is a partner in a law firm, and was directed by order of this court to pay maintenance to defendant in the sum of $125 per week. After plaintiff’s "default” as said term is defined by CPLR 5241 (a) (7), the law firm of which plaintiff is a partner was served with an income execution commending said firm to deduct each week from the income the debtor is receiving or will receive, the total sum of $200, $125 of which shall be on account of current support, and $75 of which shall be applied to the reduction of arrears. Oddly enough, in moving to vacate the income execution, the debtor does not dispute the fact that he is in default, but, rather, claims that plaintiff is a partner and not an employee of said firm, and contends that partner*113ship "draw” is not "income” as said term is defined in CPLR 5241 (á) (6). The court rejects plaintiff’s contention and denies his motion to vacate the income execution served on his firm.

CPLR 5241 (a) (6) defines "income” as any earned, unearned, taxable or nontaxable income, workers’ compensation, disability benefits, unemployment insurance benefits and Federal Social Security benefits as defined in 42 USC § 662 (f) (2), but excluding public assistance benefits paid pursuant to the Social Services Law and Federal Supplemental Security Income. CPLR 5241 (a) (5) (iii) includes under the definition of "income payor”, "any person, corporation, trustee, unincorporated business or association, partnership” (emphasis added) while CPLR 5241 (g) directs an employer or "income payor” served with an execution to commence deductions from income.

Partnership draw is nothing more than a form of compensation whereby partners, pursuant to an agreement, take money from a partnership drawing account on a periodic basis as salary or as a share of profits from the enterprise. Plaintiff offers no proof that his partnership agreement is any different. Accordingly, this motion is denied and the law firm of Gerst & Pullin, Esqs. is hereby directed to comply with the income execution served on it.
Exhibit 10.2

AMENDMENT NO.
4
TO
EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT 

This amendment (the
“Amendment”) is made as of and effective this 30th day of
May 2016, between CalAmp Corp. (the “Company”) and Richard
Vitelle (“Executive”).

RECITALS: 

A. The Company and Executive
are parties to that certain Employment Agreement originally dated as of May 31,
2002 and as previously amended on December 19, 2008, June 12, 2013 and May 30,
2014 (the “Employment
Agreement”), pursuant to which
Executive is employed by the Company. 

B. The Company and Executive
desire to amend the terms of the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and of the respective covenants and agreements
set forth below, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

	       	1.       	In accordance with
      Section 1(e) and Section 9(f) of the Employment Agreement, the Employment
      Agreement is hereby further amended by this Amendment to extend the term
      for a period of two years, through May 31, 2018.
		  
		2.	Except as otherwise
      amended herein, all terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall
      remain in full force and effect.
		   
		3.	Original signatures
      transmitted and received via facsimile or other electronic transmission of
      a scanned document, (e.g., .pdf or similar format) are true and valid
      signatures for all purposes hereunder and shall bind the parties to the
      same extent as that of an original signature. This Amendment may be
      executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to
      constitute an original but all of which together shall constitute only one
      document.


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


		/s/ Richard Vitelle
		Richard
      Vitelle
		  
		  
		CALAMP
      CORP.
		   
		    
		/s/ Michael Burdiek
		By: 	Michael Burdiek
			President &
      CEO
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13242]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (10-062)]


Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant partially exclusive license.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) 
and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to 
grant a partially exclusive license in the United States to practice 
the inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 6,918,970 
``High Strength Aluminum Alloy for High Temperature Applications'' and 
Foreign Patent Application Serial No. PCT/US/03/10372 ``High Strength 
Aluminum Alloy for High Temperature Applications'' to Twin City Fan 
Companies Ltd, having its principal place of business in Minneapolis, 
MN. The patent rights in this invention have been assigned to the 
United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective 
exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 
U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. NASA has not yet made a determination to 
grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if 
no objections are submitted within the comment period.

DATES: The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 
fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives 
written objections including evidence and argument that establish that 
the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements 
of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and 
received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published 
notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the 
contemplated exclusive license.
    Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made 
available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by 
law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 
U.S.C. 552.

ADDRESSES: Objections relating to the prospective license may be 
submitted to Mr. James J. McGroary, Chief Patent Counsel/LS01, Marshall 
Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812, (256) 544-0013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sammy A. Nabors, Technology Transfer 
Program Office/ED10, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 
35812, (256) 544-5226. Information about other NASA inventions 
available for licensing can be found online at http://technology.nasa.gov.

    Dated: May 26, 2010.
Richard W. Sherman,
Deputy General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2010-13242 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

                        FIRST CHESTER COUNTY CORPORATION


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Chester County Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John A.  Featherman  III,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  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.



November 15, 2004



/S/ John A. Featherman III
--------------------------
John A. Featherman III
Chief Executive Officer
1 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont 

____________________ 

NO. 09-12-00577-CV 

____________________ 

IN THE INTEREST OF R.E.H. 

_______________________________________________________ ______________ 

On Appeal from the 163rd District Court 

Orange County, Texas 

Trial Cause No. B-090807-D 

________________________________________________________ _____________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The appellants filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is 

voluntarily made by the appellants prior to any decision of this Court. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party filed notice of appeal. We grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal. 

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

 

 ________________________________ 

 CHARLES KREGER 

 Justice 

 

Opinion Delivered October 17, 2013 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Case No. DA 22

- 0577

* * * * THE FRIENDS OF LAKE FIVE, INC.
, and WARD E. “MICK” TALEFF,

Appellee /Petitioners

,

vs.

FLATHEAD COUNTY COMMISSION; FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA;

Appellee /Respondents,

and

SUSAN DIETZ, Individually and Trustee of G&M TRUST,

Appellant /Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER GRANTING

EXTENSION

In accordance with Rule 26(1), M.R.App.P., the Appellant, Susan Dietz, is

granted a 30

- day extension of time up to and including Thursday January 26, 202 3

,

to file her Opening Brief in this appeal.

DATED AND ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED BELOW

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court
December 21 2022

12/21/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0577
Exhibit 10.30a
 ADDENDUM ONE
TO LEASE AGREEMENT FOR A GAMMA KNIFE UNIT
  RECITALS
     AGREEMENT
 Defined Terms
 Per Procedure Payments
 (a)
    
    From July 1, 2002 through and including December 31, 2002,
the per procedure payment payable by JFK to GKF shall be equal to * per
procedure.(b)
    
    From and after January 1, 2003, the per procedure payment
payable by JFK to GKF shall be * per procedure.
 Marketing Support
 - 1 -




---



##### 



Full Force and Effect
  GKF:
    
    
    
    
    
    JFK:GK FINANCING, LLC
    
    
    
    THE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL GROUP, INC.,dba JFK Medical CenterBy:
    
    /s/ Ernest A. Bates, M.D.
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ J. Scott GebhardErnest A. Bates, M.D.
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    J. Scott GebhardPolicy Committee Member
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    EVP/COO
 - 2 -
32(ii)
------

            Section 1350 Certification of Principal Financial Officer
            ---------------------------------------------------------


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Monroe Bancorp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon M. Dyott,
Executive Vice President and 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 results of operation of
          the Company.




/s/ Gordon M. Dyott
-------------------

Gordon M. Dyott
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
August 8, 2005


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed for any other purpose.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12942]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Review of proposals received in 
response to NIH-NHLBI-HB-11-02.
    Date: June 22, 2010.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B 
Rockledge Drive, 3137, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference 
Call) .
    Contact Person: Quirijn Vos, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 
7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 301-451-2666, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5425223b27143a3d353d307a3a3d3c7a333b22"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ddacabb2ae9db3b4bcb4b9f3b3b4b5f3bab2ab">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Genetics Autoimmunity.
    Date: June 22, 2010.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6700B Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call) .
    Contact Person: Sujata Vijh, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/
NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-
594-0985, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9aecf3f0f2e9daf4f3fbf3feb4f4f3f2b4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="26504f4c4e5566484f474f4208484f4e08414950">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 24, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-12942 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

DONTAY LAMAR WILLIAMS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0850 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2008-160672-001

The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

APPEARANCES

Dontay Lamar Williams, Kingman

Petitioner

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

FILED 1-16-2018
STATE v. WILLIAMS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge James P. Beene, Judge Randall M. Howe and Judge Kent E. 

Cattani delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Dontay Lamar Williams seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is Petitioner’s

third petition for post-conviction relief.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is 

petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by 

denying the petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 

537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of 

establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion.

¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2439-2 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 15:18:41 Page 1

of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2439-2 Filed: 06/06/19 Entered: 06/06/19 15:18:41 Page 2

of 2
Order entered July 9, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01374-CR

GAYLON DAVIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-33585-K

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On June 29,2 015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the 

appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court-appointed counsel; (3) counsel’s 

explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is her workload; and (4) counsel requested 

twenty-one days from the July 7, 2015 findings to file appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 2015.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5132 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5132

   To amend title 11 of the United States Code to dispense with the 
  requirement of providing assurance of payment for utility services 
                      under certain circumstances.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 17, 2014

Mr. Conyers (for himself, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. 
   Norton, and Ms. Lofgren) introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 11 of the United States Code to dispense with the 
  requirement of providing assurance of payment for utility services 
                      under certain circumstances.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing Termination of Utility 
Services in Bankruptcy Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT.

    Section 366 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section in a case 
in which the debtor is an individual, if the debtor pays in the 20-day 
period beginning on the date of the order for relief debts owed to a 
utility for service provided during such period and thereafter pays 
when due debts owed to such utility for service provided during the 
pendency of the case, then the debtor may not be required to furnish 
assurance of payment.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 137 Filed: 01/30/19 Entered: 01/30/19 15:37:06 Page 1 of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 137 Filed: 01/30/19 Entered: 01/30/19 15:37:06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-47,915-04

EX PARTE RICHARD FININEN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2015F00270A IN THE 5 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM CASS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and

the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. According to

the record, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on March 29, 2022, but the transcript of the

hearing was not forwarded to this Court. Under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure, a reporter is required to transcribe a hearing within fifteen days of its conclusion and then

to immediately forward the transcript to the district clerk in the county of conviction. Id. at § 3(d). 

After receiving the transcript, the district clerk is required to forward it, among other things, to this

Court. Id.; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(4).

The district clerk shall serve the reporter in Applicant’s case with a copy of this order and
2

then either forward to this Court the transcript of the evidentiary hearing or certify in writing that the

reporter has not transcribed the hearing. The district clerk shall comply with this order within thirty

days from the date of this order.

Filed: April 18, 2022

Do not publish
#### William B. Perry and another, Appellants, v. John L. Smith, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Van Brunt, P. J.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 283 Filed: 02/04/19 Entered: 02/04/19 16:46:48 Page 1 of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 283 Filed: 02/04/19 Entered: 02/04/19 16:46:48 Page 2 of 3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 283 Filed: 02/04/19 Entered: 02/04/19 16:46:48 Page 3 of 3
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 29, 2018

No. 04-18-00042-CV

Joseph M. ESPARZA and Volaire Jet Interiors, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

Chad F. CHRISTIAN,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CV03128

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The parties have filed a Second Agreed Motion to Abate Appellate Deadlines pending 

mediation. The parties request that we abate this appeal until July 14, 2018. The parties’ agreed 

motion is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that the appellant file a motion requesting an 

appropriate disposition of this appeal on or before July 14, 2018. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1, 43.2; see 

Caballero v. Heart of Texas Pizza, L.L.C., 70 S.W.3d 180, 180 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, 

no pet.).

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 29th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
---

EXHIBIT 15.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting
Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements:

|1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-149816)
      pertaining to 3SBio Inc.s 2006 Stock Plan, and       
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                              
|2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-170926)
      pertaining to 3SBio Inc.s 2010 Equity Incentive
Plan;

of our reports dated April 30, 2013, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of 3SBio Inc. and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of 3SBio Inc. included in this Annual
Report (Form 20-F) of 3SBio Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Ernst & Young Hua Ming LLP Beijing, Peoples Republic
of ChinaApril 30, 2013

---