alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The STATE of Texas, Petitioner, v. Bill and Susan HYNES, Individually and as Next Friends for Julie Elizabeth Hynes, Respondents.

No. D-4088.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 24, 1993.

Dan Morales, Will Pryor, Mary F. Keller, Richard D. Naylor, Grady Click, Mark Heid-enheimer, Austin, for petitioner.

Michael L. Atkinson, David G. Mills, Orange, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Bill and Susan Hynes, individually and as next friends for their minor daughter sued the State of Texas for personal injuries the daughter suffered in an automobile accident. The Hynes allege that the State is liable for negligence under the Texas Tort Claims Act,1 for failing to replace a traffic sign within a reasonable time after receiving notice that a third party had removed the sign.

A stop sign had been placed at the exit from a private parking lot to a highway access road. Some time before the accident, the sign was removed. The State’s uncontro-verted evidence showed that the State neither placed the sign, nor authorized it, in the private drive adjacent to the intersection where the accident occurred. The sign was on private property, but was in the highway right-of-way. The State had notice that the sign had been erected, but there is no summary judgment evidence the State had actual notice the sign was removed before the accident. The trial court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment based on governmental immunity. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that a fact issue was raised because there was a reasonable inference from the evidence that the State’s failure to remove the privately constructed sign amounted to an adoption of the sign as its own. 855 S.W.2d 731, 733-34. We disagree.

The relevant statute expressly declares any privately constructed sign on the state *944highway right-of-way as a public nuisance.2 Furthermore, the State is “empowered” to remove such a private sign or cause it to be removed without notice.3 The statute does not direct the State to remove such signs within any particular time limit. It does not require the State to remove signs at all, but permits it.

We construe this statute to provide the State with a discretionary decision when to remove such privately constructed traffic signs. No inference of “adoption” of the sign by the State arises because the State decides not to remove the sign by a certain date, even though it has notice of the sign, because the State’s decision to delay enforcement of a statute stating it “may” remove such signs, is discretionary. Discretionary acts by the State are not subject to liability. TexCiv. PRAC. *&*Rem.Code AnN. § 101.056 (Vernon 1986); *see also State v. Terrell,*588 S.W.2d 784, 787-88 (Tex.1979) (immunity to governmental units for certain discretionary decisions). Without hearing argument, a majority of the court grants the application for writ of error, reverses the judgment of the court of appeals, and affirms the summary judgment of the trial court. TexR.App.P. 170.

1

. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.060(a)(2), (3) (Vernon 1986).

2

. TexRev.Civ.StatAnn. art. 6701d § 36(c) (Vernon 1977).

3

. *Id.*
EXHIBIT 24.1

UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK

POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned directors and officers of Union Security Life Insurance Company of New York, a New York corporation, hereby constitute and appoint Michael J. Peninger,
Manuel J. Becerra, Tamhra Mangelsen, Katherine Greenzang and Raj B. Dave, and each of them, the individuals true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, to be filed by Union Security Life Insurance Company of New York, or any amendment to such report, and all other documents in connection therewith, and to file the same with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting to said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them full power and authority, as fully to all intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that
said attorneys-in-fact as agents or any of them, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



|                                            |  |  |  |                                                                                
|------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Signature                                   |  |  |  | Title                                                                          
|/s/ Michael J. Peninger Michael J. Peninger |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board (Principal Executive Officer)
|                                            |  | 
|/s/ Manuel J. Becerra Manuel J. Becerra     |  |  |  | President (Principal Executive Officer)                                        
|                                            |  | 
|/s/ Terry J. Kryshak Terry J. Kryshak       |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and Director                                             
|                                            |  | 
|/s/ Tamrha V. Mangelsen Tamrha V. Mangelsen |  |  |  | Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)            
|                                            |  | 
|/s/ Paula M. SeGuin Paula M. SeGuin         |  |  |  | Assistant Secretary and Director                                               
|                                            |  | 
|/s/ Melissa J. T. Hall Melissa J.T. Hall    |  |  |  | Assistant Treasurer and Director                                               



---

Union Security Life Insurance Company

Power of Attorney

Page Two



|                                        |  |  |  |         
|--------------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------
|/s/ Allen R. Freedman Allen R. Freedman |  |  |  | Director
|                                        |  | 
|/s/ H. Carroll Mackin H.
Carroll Mackin |  |  |  | Director
|                                        |  | 
|/s/ Dale E. Gardner Dale
E .Gardner     |  |  |  | Director
|                                        |  | 
|/s/ Esther L. Nelson Esther L. Nelson   |  |  |  | Director
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 09-20215

Plaintiff, HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

United States District Judge

v.

D-2 JOSE CASTRO-RAMIREZ,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

OPINION & ORDER DENYING THE DEFENDANT’S 

RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL [Doc. No. 295]

Dr. Jose Castro-Ramirez was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit health care

fraud, eleven individual counts of health care fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit

money laundering. [See Doc. No. 4]. Jury trial in this matter began on February 16, 2010. 

At the close of the Government’s proofs, Dr. Castro-Ramirez made an oral motion for

acquittal pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 29. In an eleven-page Opinion & Order [See Doc. No.

276], the Court denied Dr. Castro’s motion. On March 11, 2010, the jury found Dr. CastroRamirez guilty on all counts. [See Doc. No. 285]. 

The case is before the Court on Dr. Castro-Ramirez’ “Renewed Motion for a Judgment of

Acquittal” [Doc. No. 295], filed March 25, 2010. In his brief in support of the instant motion,

which Dr. Castro-Ramirez concedes was brought “[i]n order to preserve his right to challenge

the sufficiency of the Government’s proofs on appeal,” Id. at 4, Dr. Castro-Ramirez again argues

that the evidence presented by the Government at trial was insufficient under FED. R. CRIM. P.

29. The Government opposes Dr. Castro-Ramirez’ current motion. [See Doc. No. 311]. 
2

Dr. Castro-Ramirez’ instant motion makes no argument about the sufficiency of the

evidence against him that was not considered by the Court in its March 9, 2010 Opinion & Order

[Doc. No. 276]. The Court therefore DENIES Dr. Castro’s “Renewed Motion for a Judgment of

Acquittal” [Doc. No. 295]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: April 22, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on

April 22, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager
**Exhibit
      32**











**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 Cactus Ventures, Inc. a Nevada
      corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending
      March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), I, Diane S. Button, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.






Date:
      May 10, 2007        /s/ Diane
      S.
      Button


Chief
      Executive Officer
      and


Chief
      Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In
connection with the quarterly report of Axcess Medical Imaging Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Stephen Miley, MD, Chief Executive 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:
 
 ·
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
 ·
              The
      information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.
 
 Date:
November 14, 2008
 
 /s/
      Stephen Miley, MD
 Chief
Executive Officer, Secretary and Director
 (Principal
Executive Officer)
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
  1.
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Companies.
 /s/ Erik OlssonErik OlssonPresident andChief Executive OfficerJuly 31, 2008/s/ David MathiesonDavid MathiesonSenior Vice President, andChief Financial OfficerJuly 31, 2008
#### Timothy WELCH, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 68959.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 9, 1996.

S. Paige Canfield, Special Public Defender’s Office, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Kurt U. Schaefer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
exhibit_4-22.htm










Exhibit 4.22


 


Amendment Number 3


To


Advisory Agreement


 


This amendment (the “Amendment”) is entered into this 7 day of November, 2013, by and between B.O.S. Better Online Solutions Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Israel, having a place of business at 20 Freiman St., Rishon LeZion, Israel (the “Company”) and Telegraph Hill Group LLC, having its offices at 582 Market Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, Ca 94104, USA (“THG”) (and together with the Company, the “Parties”).


 



	
Whereas,

	
The Parties to this Amendment have entered into a certain Advisory Agreement dated September 1, 2009, as amended on November 16, 2009 and February 8 2013 (the “Advisory Agreement”); and







 



	
Whereas,

	
The Parties desire to amend certain terms and provisions of the Advisory Agreement, all as more fully set forth herein.







 


Now therefore, the Parties hereby agree as follows:


 



	
1.

	
General Provisions







 



	
  

	
1.1.

	
Except for the amendments explicitly set forth herein and in the previous Amendments, all other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement remain in full force and effect.







 



	
  

	
1.2.

	
Any term not specifically defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Advisory Agreement.







 



	
2.

	
Amendment to Advisory Agreement







 



	
  

	
2.1.

	
Section 4.1C – shall be replaced in its entirety with the following:







 


“The parties hereby agree that commencing on January 2013 THCap shall be paid a retainer for business development services that it provides for the Company. The retainer will be in an amount of $3,650 per month, and will be paid in the Company’s Ordinary Shares as follows:


 


Payment will be made once a quarter, on the last business day of each quarter.


 


The price per share used for the share consideration calculation will be equal to the weighted average closing price of the Ordinary Shares on the applicable stock market on the 20 trading days ending on the last day of the applicable quarter.”


 




  





  











  






 



	
  

	
2.2.

	
This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same instrument.







 


In Witness Whereof, the parties have hereunto set their hand upon the date hereof.


 



	
B.O.S.  Better Online Solutions Ltd.

	  	
Telegraph Hill Group LLC


	  	  	  
	 	 	 	 	 
	
Name:

	  	  	
Name:

	  	  
	
Title:

	  	  	
Title:
Case 1:09-cv-10972-TLL-CEB Document 48 Filed 05/17/10 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:09-cv-10972-TLL-CEB Document 48 Filed 05/17/10 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:09-cv-10972-TLL-CEB Document 48 Filed 05/17/10 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:09-cv-10972-TLL-CEB Document 48 Filed 05/17/10 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:09-cv-10972-TLL-CEB Document 48 Filed 05/17/10 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:09-cv-10972-TLL-CEB Document 48 Filed 05/17/10 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:09-cv-10972-TLL-CEB Document 48 Filed 05/17/10 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:09-cv-10972-TLL-CEB Document 48 Filed 05/17/10 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:09-cv-10972-TLL-CEB Document 48 Filed 05/17/10 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:09-cv-10972-TLL-CEB Document 48 Filed 05/17/10 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:09-cv-10972-TLL-CEB Document 48 Filed 05/17/10 Page 11 of 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GERALDINE RHIMES,

Plaintiff, Case no. 09-13015

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant,

____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court, pursuant to 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S. C.

636(b)(1)(B), and LR 72.1(b)(3), has reviewed Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub’s July 7,

2010, Report and Recommendation, as well as any objections filed by the parties, and upon

review;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the

findings and conclusions of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed

November 6, 2009 is DENIED, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, filed December 4,

2009 is GRANTED, and the complaint DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara 

United States District Judge

Date: August 6, 2010
2

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of

record on this date, August 6, 2010, using the ECF system and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz 

Case Manager
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4054

To provide relief to agricultural producers who granted easements to, or

owned or operated land condemned by, the Secretary of the Army for

flooding losses caused by water retention at the dam site at Lake

Redrock, Iowa, to the extent that the actual losses exceed the estimates

of the Secretary, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 11, 1996

Mr. LIGHTFOOT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To provide relief to agricultural producers who granted easements to, or owned or operated land condemned by,

the Secretary of the Army for flooding losses caused

by water retention at the dam site at Lake Redrock,

Iowa, to the extent that the actual losses exceed the

estimates of the Secretary, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4054 IH

1 SECTION 1. RELIEF TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS FOR

2 FLOODING LOSS CAUSED BY DAM ON LAKE

3 REDROCK, IOWA.

4 (a) ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible for assistance under

5 this section, an agricultural producer must—

6 (1)(A) be an owner or operator of land who

7 granted an easement to the Federal Government for

8 flooding losses to the land caused by water retention

9 at the dam site at Lake Redrock, Iowa; or

10 (B) have been an owner or operator of land

11 that was condemned by the Federal Government be12 cause of flooding of the land caused by water reten13 tion at the dam site at Lake Redrock, Iowa; and

14 (2) have incurred losses that exceed the esti15 mates of the Secretary of the Army provided to the

16 producer as part of the granting of the easement or

17 as part of the condemnation.

18 (b) COMPENSATION.—

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2),

20 the Secretary of the Army shall compensate an eligi21 ble producer described in subsection (a) for flooding

22 losses to the land of the producer described in sub23 section (a)(2) in an amount determined by the Fed24 eral Crop Insurance Corporation.
3

•HR 4054 IH

1 (2) REDUCTION.—The amount of compensation

2 provided to a producer under paragraph (1) shall be

3 reduced by—

4 (A) in the case of land located on a 10-

5 year flood plain, 10 percent of the amount oth6 erwise determined under paragraph (1); and

7 (B) in the case of land located on a 25-

8 year flood plain, 4 percent of the amount other9 wise determined under paragraph (1).

Æ
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 92 Filed 01/31/12 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1663
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 92 Filed 01/31/12 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1664
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 92 Filed 01/31/12 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1665
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID ERIC DEWBERRY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-11967

HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY,

 

Defendant.

______________________________/

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan’s Report and

Recommendation dated November 30, 2009. No objections were filed thereto.

This Court had an opportunity to fully review this matter and believes that the Magistrate

Judge has reached the correct conclusions for the proper reasons.

ACCORDINGLY:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan’s Report and

Recommendation dated November 30, 2009, is hereby accepted and adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 

Dated: January 25, 2010 _s/Bernard A. Friedman______________

Detroit, Michigan BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-11967-BAF-VMM Doc # 17 Filed 01/25/10 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 60
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In the Matter of:

Bankruptcy Court No. 06-52052

JOSEPH A. SOTO and

MARGARET SOTO, District Court No. 09-11718

Debtors. Hon. John Corbett O’Meara

____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

Appellants, Airborne Express, Inc., DHL Worldwide Express, Inc., and ABX Air, Inc.,

request that the court dismiss their bankruptcy appeal pursuant to Federal Bankruptcy Rule

8001(c)(2). Having reviewed the matter, the court finds that voluntary dismissal is appropriate,

without further terms or conditions.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellants’ June 25, 2009 motion to

dismiss appeal is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellants’ appeal is DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara

United States District Judge

Date: June 30, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties of record on

this date, June 30, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager

5:09-cv-11718-JCO-MKM Doc # 11 Filed 06/30/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 64
Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS Document 19 Filed 01/13/2010 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS Document 19 Filed 01/13/2010 Page 2 of 9
Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS Document 19 Filed 01/13/2010 Page 3 of 9
Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS Document 19 Filed 01/13/2010 Page 4 of 9
Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS Document 19 Filed 01/13/2010 Page 5 of 9
Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS Document 19 Filed 01/13/2010 Page 6 of 9
Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS Document 19 Filed 01/13/2010 Page 7 of 9
Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS Document 19 Filed 01/13/2010 Page 8 of 9
Case 2:09-cv-12830-AJT-DAS Document 19 Filed 01/13/2010 Page 9 of 9
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment (this
“Amendment”) dated April 17, 2014 amends the Employment Agreement, dated February 3, 2012 (the “Employment Agreement”),
by and between Synthetic Biologics, Inc. (the “Corporation”) and Jeffrey Riley (“Executive”). Capitalized
terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings assigned in the Employment Agreement.


 


WHEREAS, Executive
was retained under the Employment Agreement by the Corporation to serve as its Chief Executive Officer; and


 


WHEREAS, in
recognition of Executive’s extraordinary effort and performance, the Corporation desires to amend the Employment Agreement
to increase Executive’s base salary as herein provided.


 


NOW THEREFORE,
for the mutual promises contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree to amend the Employment Agreement as follows:


 


1.Section 3(a)(i) of the Employment
Agreement is hereby amended by deleting the amount of annual base salary therein provided and replacing it with “Three Hundred
Eighty Five Thousand Dollars ($385,000).


 


2. All other terms
of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The Employment Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, constitutes
the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof.


 


3. This Amendment may be executed
in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but both of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	SYNTHETIC BIOLOGICS, INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ C. Evan Ballantyne
	 	Name:	C. Evan Ballantyne
	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer
	 	 
	 	/s/ Jeffrey Riley
	 	JEFFREY RILEY