alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MENER LEE MOODY, by her Next Friend, WALTER CLYDE MOODY, v. RUDELL W. MASSEY and JAMES REVELL.

(Filed 30 April, 1958.)

Automobiles § 43—

In this action by a passenger in one car against the drivers of both cars involved in a collision at an intersection, the evidence *is held,*sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the theory of the concurrent negligence of both drivers, and motion to nonsuit made by one of them on the ground that any negligence on his pant was insulated by the negligence of the other, was properly refused.

Appeal by defendant Massey from *Sharp, J.,*and a jury, at 18 November Civil Term, 1957, of Wake.

Civil action by plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from an intersection collision.

. The collision occurred about 12 miles west of Rocky Mount where Highway #95 is intersected by a county road. The defendant Massey *330was going east on Highway #95; the defendant Revell north on the county road. Both roads are paved. Stop signs at the intersection made Highway #95 the dominant, through highway, and the county road the servient road. Therefore, as the two vehicles approached the intersection, the car driven by the defendant Massey was on the favored highway as designated by the stop signs. The plaintiff was a passenger in the Massey car. The case was tried upon the following issues, answered by the jury as indicated:

‘T. Was the plaintiff injured and damaged by the negligence of defendant Rudell W. Massey, as alleged in the Complaint?

Answer: Yes.

“2. Was the plaintiff injured and damaged by the negligence of defendant James Revell, as alleged in the Complaint?

Answer: Yes.

“3. What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover?

Answer: $3,844.00.”

From judgment upon the verdict against both defendants, the defendant Massey appeals.

*Bunn & Bunn for the plaintiff.*

*Clem B. Holding for the defendant Massey.*

Per Curiam.

The single question presented by the appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant Massey’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit. His chief contention is that the evidence discloses that any negligence chargeable to him was insulated as a matter of law by the intervening negligence of the defendant Revell. However, our study of the record leaves the impression the evidence was susceptible of diverse inferences and that there was plenary evidence of actionable negligence as to both defendants. We conclude that the trial court properly submitted the case to the jury on the theory of concurrent negligence of both drivers. The verdict and judgment will be upheld. See *Blalock v. Hart,*239 N.C. 475, 80 S.E. 2d 373; *Hawes v. Refining Co.,*236 N.C. 643, 74 S.E. 2d 17.

No Error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3155]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
meeting of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), National 
Advisory Council in February 1995.
    The meeting agenda of the CSAP, National Advisory Council will 
include administrative matters, announcements and program developments, 
the SAMHSA Strategic Plan and CSAP programmatic issues including High 
Risk Finding Data Bank, Community Partnership Promising Practices, 
Cross Site Evaluation, Rules of Evidence and Knowledge Transfer. It 
will also include review of contracts and procurement plans; therefore, 
a portion of this meeting will be closed to the public as determined by 
the Administrator, SAMHSA, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(3), (4) 
and (6) and 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(d).
    A summary of this meeting and roster of committee members may be 
obtained from: Ms. Vera Hunter, Acting Committee Management Officer, 
CSAP, Rockwall II Building, Suite 7A-140, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, 
MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-9540.
    Substantive program information may be obtained from the contact 
whose name, room number, and telephone number is listed below.

    Committee Name: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National 
Advisory Council.
    Meeting Date(s): February 23-24, 1995.
    Place: Marriott Suites--Bethesda, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, Maryland 20817.
    Open: February 23, 1995 8:30 a.m.--6:00 p.m.; February 24, 1995 
9:00 a.m.--12:30 p.m.
    Closed: February 24, 1995 2 p.m.--Adjournment.
    Contact: Yuth Nimit, Ph.D.; Rockwall II Building, Suite 7A-140; 
Telephone: (301) 443-9540.

    Dated: February 3, 1995.
Jeri Lipov,
Committee Management Officer, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-3155 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4162-20-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2143

JOHN A. SHAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT F. SWEENEY, Individually and in his

former official capacity as Chief Judge,

District Court of Maryland; MARTHA R. RASIN,

Chief Judge, District Court of Maryland; J.

JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.; RICHARD N. DIXON, State

Treasurer,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-97-

1549-AMD)

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 24, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John A. Shay, Appellant Pro Se. Julia Melville Freit, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Shay

v. Sweeney, No. CA-97-1549-AMD (D. Md. July 22, 1997). 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
* 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. 96-50811 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ISMAEL FLORES-UMANA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CR-188-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - February 20, 1997 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ismael Flores-Umana appeals his sentence after his guilty plea and conviction of being a deported alien. He argues that the district court abused its discretion when it departed upwardly from the Sentencing Guidelines and that the court failed to give adequate reasons for the departure. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that it gave adequate reasons for the upward departure. United States v. Hawkins , 87No. 96-50811 - 2 - F.3d 722, 728 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 408 (1996); United States v. Lambert , 984 F.2d 658, 662 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2
                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                           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 Alec Bradley Cigar
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Alan Rubin, Principal 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 operations of the
Company.


Date:  August 10, 2005


/s/ Alan Rubin
--------------
Alan Rubin
Principal Financial Officer
#### NATHAN K. BLACKWELDER v. MARCUS LaFAYETTE HARRIS.

(Filed 27 April, 1960.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Sharp, S. J.,*November 1959 Term, of CABARRUS.

Civil action to recover damages for personal injuries and damage to an automobile resulting from a collision of automobiles in the intersection of two roads.

Defendant in his answer denied that he was negligent, alleged that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and asserted a counterclaim for damages to his automobile.

At the close of all the evidence, the court allowed plaintiff’s motion for judgment of nonsuit as to defendant’s counterclaim.

Issues were submitted to the jury, which found by its verdict that plaintiff was injured and damaged by the negligence of the defendant, and that plaintiff by his own negligence contributed to his injury and damage.

From judgment entered in accord with the verdict, plaintiff appeals.

*C. M. Llewellyn and Ann L. McKenzie for plaintiff, appellant.*

*John Hugh Williams for defendant, appellee.*

PeR Cubiam.

The record shows that at the January Term 1959 *463of the Superior Court of Cabarrus County, this action was tried by a judge and jury, and that the jury answered the issues as the jury did at the November Term 1959. The presiding judge at the January Term 1959, in his discretion, set the verdict aside.

Plaintiff’s assignments of error have been carefully considered, and all of them are overruled. There is nothing in the record before us to justify a new trial.

No error.
MP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0433

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

NATHAN MAHSEELAH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 45-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time

to and including May 26, 2020, within which to prepare, serve, and file the 

State’s response.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 8 2020

04/08/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0433
| EXHIBIT 23.1                                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos.33-87908, 333-57580,333-18347,  333-55821 and 333-115719)  of our reports dated March 5, 2007, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc., Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Palomar Medical Technologies, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) forthe year ended December 31, 2006. 
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP      Boston, MassachusettsMarch 5, 2007 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 10.6


 


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 


BETWEEN PISHPOSH, INC. AND JESSE SUTTON


 


This Amendment
to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of December 20, 2022 (the “Effective
Date”) by and between PishPosh, Inc. (the “Company”) and Jesse Sutton (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS,
Executive and Pish Posh Baby LLC (“PPB”) previously entered into an Employment Agreement effective as of January
12, 2022 (the “Employment Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS,
on February 25, 2022, PPB merged with an into the Company with the Company surviving such merger and succeeding to the business
of PPB and assuming the contracts of PPB, including the Employment Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and Executive each believe it is in their respective best interests to enter into amended employment terms for Executive
setting forth the mutual understandings and agreements reached between the Company and the Executive with respect to the Executive’s
continued employment with the Company.


 


NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as
follows:


 


		1.	Section B of Article I is hereby amended by deleting such section in its entirety and replacing it with the following:



 


“B.      Performance.
The Executive's principal place of employment shall be in Lakewood, NJ. During the Executive's employment with the Company, the
Executive shall devote such of the Executive's time, energy, skill and reasonable best efforts as is necessary to the performance
of the Executive's duties hereunder in a manner that will faithfully and diligently further the business and interests of the Company,
and shall exercise reasonable best efforts to perform the Executive's duties in a diligent, trustworthy, good faith and business-like
manner, all for the purpose of advancing the business of the Company. The Executive shall at all times act in a manner consistent
with the Executive's position.”


 


		2.	This Amendment shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Delaware.



 


		3.	Except as otherwise amended under this Amendment, the remaining provisions of the Employment Agreement apply in full force
and effect.



 




    	 	1	 



     


    







 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and
Executive have caused this Amendment to be executed as of the first date written above.


 


	 	COMPANY:	 
	 	 	 
	 	PISHPOSH, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Charlie Birnbaum	 
	 	Name:	Charlie Birnbaum	 
	 	Title: 	Chief Operating Officer	 


 


	 	EXECUTIVE:	 
	 	 	 
	 	/s/
    Jesse Sutton	 
	 	Jesse Sutton	 


 




    	 	2
##### 



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three and nine months ended
June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   /s/ A LAURENCE JONES
    
    8/12/05A Laurence Jones
    
    DatePresident and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RIGOBERTO ROBUSTIANO CARRANDI, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge; Paul Trevor Sharp, Magistrate Judge. (CR-90- 185) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 23, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rigoberto Robustiano Carrandi, Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Rigoberto Carrandi appeals from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion requesting a copy of his trial transcript at the government’s expense. The district court denied the motion because Appellant did not show a particularized need for the transcript. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Carrandi , CR-90-185 (M.D.N.C. July 23, 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,345,288
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  576,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    566,714
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       6,105,050
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,593,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,084,297
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,593,113
<SALES>                                        480,241
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,668,842
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,259,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               194,370
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               710,868
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             251,161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                408,915
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            408,915
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   408,915
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.80
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.80


</TABLE>
Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

Long-range 

actuarial 

balance

Annual 

balance in 

75th year

-3.61 -4.35 1.84 2.33 51% 54%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2023 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary

Social Security Administration

August 1, 2023

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Cost-of-Living Adjustment

Current law

[percent of payroll]

Change from current law

[percent of payroll] Shortfall eliminated

Proposed Provision: A7. Starting December 2024, reduce the annual COLA by 1 percentage point, but not 

to less than zero. In cases where the unreduced COLA is less than 1 percentage point, do not carry over 

the unused reduction into future years.

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Income rates under current law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under current law

Cost rates with this provision

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2023 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Current law With this provision
Year Cost Rate

Income 

Rate

Annual 

Balance

2008 11.20 12.77 1.57 359

2009 11.26 14.61 3.34 369

2010 11.36 14.62 3.26 393

2011 11.53 14.64 3.12 416

2012 11.76 14.67 2.91 436

2013 12.03 14.70 2.68 453

2014 12.31 14.72 2.40 467

2015 12.61 14.74 2.13 478

2016 12.92 14.76 1.84 487

2017 13.23 14.79 1.55 494

2018 13.53 14.81 1.28 500

2019 13.83 14.83 0.99 503

2020 14.13 14.84 0.71 506

2021 14.41 14.86 0.45 507

2022 14.68 14.88 0.20 507

2023 14.94 14.90 -0.05 507

2024 15.19 14.91 -0.28 505

2025 15.43 14.93 -0.50 503

2026 15.65 14.94 -0.71 499

2027 15.86 14.96 -0.90 495

2028 16.06 14.97 -1.09 490

2029 16.24 14.98 -1.26 485

2030 16.40 14.99 -1.41 479

2031 16.54 15.00 -1.53 474

2032 16.65 15.01 -1.64 468

2033 16.74 15.02 -1.72 462

2034 16.80 15.02 -1.77 456

2035 16.84 15.03 -1.81 450

2036 16.86 15.03 -1.83 445

2037 16.87 15.03 -1.84 440

2038 16.87 15.04 -1.83 435

2039 16.84 15.04 -1.81 430

2040 16.81 15.03 -1.77 426

2041 16.77 15.03 -1.74 422

2042 16.73 15.03 -1.70 418

2043 16.69 15.03 -1.66 414

2044 16.65 15.03 -1.62 410

2045 16.62 15.03 -1.59 407

2046 16.59 15.03 -1.56 403

2047 16.56 15.03 -1.53 400

2048 16.54 15.03 -1.51 396

2049 16.53 15.03 -1.50 393

2050 16.52 15.03 -1.49 389

2051 16.52 15.03 -1.49 386

2052 16.52 15.03 -1.49 382

2053 16.53 15.03 -1.50 378

2054 16.54 15.03 -1.51 373

2055 16.56 15.03 -1.53 369

2056 16.58 15.04 -1.55 364

2057 16.61 15.04 -1.57 359

2058 16.64 15.04 -1.59 354

2059 16.66 15.04 -1.62 349

2060 16.68 15.04 -1.64 343

2061 16.71 15.05 -1.66 337

2062 16.74 15.05 -1.69 331

2063 16.76 15.05 -1.71 325

2064 16.79 15.05 -1.73 319

2065 16.82 15.05 -1.76 313

Detailed Single Year Tables

Category of Change: Payroll Tax Rates

Proposed Provision: Raise payroll tax rates (for employees and employers combined) by 1.8 percentage 

points in 2009 and later

Expressed as a percentage of taxable payrol Trust Fund 

Ratio 

1-1-year
2066 16.85 15.06 -1.79 306

2067 16.88 15.06 -1.82 299

2068 16.91 15.06 -1.85 291

2069 16.94 15.06 -1.88 284

2070 16.98 15.06 -1.92 276

2071 17.02 15.07 -1.95 268

2072 17.06 15.07 -1.99 260

2073 17.10 15.07 -2.03 251

2074 17.14 15.07 -2.06 242

2075 17.18 15.08 -2.10 233

2076 17.22 15.08 -2.14 223

2077 17.26 15.08 -2.18 214

2078 17.31 15.08 -2.22 204

2079 17.35 15.09 -2.27 193

2080 17.40 15.09 -2.31 182

2081 17.45 15.09 -2.35 171

2082 17.49 15.09 -2.40 160

2083 17.54 15.10 -2.44 148

2084 17.58 15.10 -2.48 136

2085 17.63 15.10 -2.53 123

Summarized Rates: OASDI

2008 Cost Rate Income Rate

Actuarial 

Balance

-2082 15.63% 15.70% 0.07% 1.77%

Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

Estimates based on Intermediate Assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report

Change in 

Actuarial Balance

July 17, 2008