alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Marion Johnson, Plaintiff, *v.*Kazimier Klimecki et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

January 8, 1957.

*605
      *John E. Kingston*for plaintiff.

*David Belson*for Stella Klimecki and another, defendants.

No appearance for Edwin Klimecki, defendant.

James S. Brown, J.

Motion to vacate *lis pendens*upon the ground that one of the three defendants was not served in accordance with section 120 of the Civil Practice Act is denied. Section 120 of the Civil Practice Act does not require service upon all the defendants.

*“*Section 120 of the Civil Practice Act provides that in an action ‘ to recover a judgment affecting the title to, or the possession, use, or enjoyment of real property, if the complaint is verified, the plaintiff, when he files his complaint 5 * * may file in the clerk’s office of each county where the property is situated a notice of the pendency of the action **** *. Such a notice may be filed with the complaint before the service of the summons; but, in that case, personal or substituted service of the summons *must be made upon a*defendant, within sixty days after the filing, or else, before the expiration of the same time, publication of the summons must be commenced, or service thereof must be made without the state, as prescribed by law.’ (Emphasis supplied.) That section is to be read in connection with section 218 of the Civil Practice Act, which provides that a civil action ‘ is commenced by the service of a summons, which is a mandate of the court. ’ Thus, one may file a *lis pendens*before the service of the summons, but one *must*commence the action by the service of the summons upon one of the defendants within sixty days in the manner prescribed in section 120 of the Civil Practice Act.” *(Israelson*v. *Bradley,*308 N. Y. 511, 514.)

Settle order on notice.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                 NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 Statement of Computation of Earnings per Share
                 (Amounts in Thousands - Except Per Share Data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    For the Three Months                      For the Six Months
                                                        Ended June 30                            Ended June 30
                                               ------------------------------         ---------------------------------

                                                   2002              2001                  2002               2001
                                               -------------     ------------         -------------       -------------
<S>                                            <C>               <C>                  <C>                 <C>
Net Earnings                                   $       2,221     $      2,559         $       5,468       $       4,033
                                               =============     ============         =============       =============

Weighted average common
       shares outstanding                             15,005           15,005                15,005              15,005
                                               =============     ============         =============       =============

Basic and diluted earnings
       per share                               $         .15     $        .17         $         .36       $         .27
                                               =============     ============         =============       =============
</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Railroad Administration 

          - [Docket Number FRA-2008-0003] 

Although not required, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is providing notice that it has received a petition for approval of a Railroad Safety Program Plan (RSPP) submitted pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart H. The petition is listed below, including the party seeking approval, and the requisite docket number. FRA is not accepting comments on this RSPP. 

## Ohio Central Railroad System 

The Ohio Central Railroad System (OCRS) submitted a petition for approval of an RSPP. The petition, the RSPP, and any related documents have been placed in the requisite docket (FRA-2008-0003) and are available for public inspection. 

                    Interested parties are invited to review the RSPP and associated documents at the DOT Docket Management Facility during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the internet at                     *http://www.regulations.gov.*

                    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications received into any of our dockets by name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the                     **Federal Register**                     published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).                 

Issued in Washington, DC on February 4, 2008. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development.

 [FR Doc. E8-2394 Filed 2-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02474-MSK-MEH

DURANGO MERCHANT SERVICES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

INFO.COM (US);

INTERNET MEDIA PROMOTIONS LIMITED; and

INFO.COM LIMITED,

Defendants.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.
DATED this 23rd day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1392 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1392

To increase the authorization for the major medical facility project to 
 consolidate the medical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
 at the University Drive and H. John Heinz III divisions, Pittsburgh, 
                             Pennsylvania.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 2007

  Mr. Specter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To increase the authorization for the major medical facility project to 
 consolidate the medical centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
 at the University Drive and H. John Heinz III divisions, Pittsburgh, 
                             Pennsylvania.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION FOR MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY PROJECT 
              TO CONSOLIDATE THE MEDICAL CENTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF 
              VETERANS AFFAIRS AT THE UNIVERSITY DRIVE AND H. JOHN 
              HEINZ III DIVISIONS, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA.

    Section 802(12) of the Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and 
Information Technology Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-461; 120 Stat. 3443) 
is amended by striking ``$189,205,000'' and inserting ``$248,000,000''.
                                 <all>
```
#### PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY, RIVERSIDE DIVISION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 75-1986.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Oct. 13, 1976.

Irving 0. Murphy, MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton, Erie, Pa., for petitioner.

Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Michael Messitte, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before McCREE, LIVELY and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on a petition to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) and the cross-application of the Board seeking enforcement of its order. The order and decision of the Board is reported at 219 NLRB No. 35.

The Board determined that five newly acquired retail food stores did not constitute a true bargaining accretion to the 29 stores already operated by the petitioner. The preexisting 29 stores were covered by a collective bargaining agreement between petitioner and United Food Handlers Union (the Union). The Board found that petitioner committed unfair labor practices in recognizing the Union as bargaining representative of the employees of the five newly acquired stores before a majority of these employees had selected the Union and applying the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement with the Union requiring employees of the newly acquired stores to join the Union as a condition of employment.

Petitioner contends that the Board abused its discretion and denied petitioner a fair determination by making findings of fact contrary to those stipulated by the Board and petitioner. The stipulation was not presented as the only evidence in the case. An administrative law judge conducted a hearing and the evidence produced at the hearing supplemented the stipulation. Moreover, there appear to have been inconsistencies within the stipulation itself.

By finding that the newly acquired stores did not constitute an accretion and are an appropriate separate bargaining unit, the Board guaranteed to the new employees of petitioner an opportunity to choose a representative rather than being bound by the choice previously exercised by the employees of previously owned stores. We find no abuse of discretion in the action of the Board and hold that its finding that the *678newly acquired stores do not constitute an accretion is supported by substantial evidence on the entire record.

The order of the Board is enforced.
Exhibit 99.1


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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Heritage Organization, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB  for  the quarter ended  November 30,
2002,  (the  "Report"), I, Vickie Walker, Chief  Executive Officer 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 requirement of Section 13(a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) The information contained in the  Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the Company's financial position and results of operations.




-----------------------
Vickie A. Walker
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1442 

To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish new units 

of Customs Patrol Officers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2007 

Mr. THOMAS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish 

new units of Customs Patrol Officers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Shadow Wolves Appre5 hension and Tracking Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CUSTOMS PATROL OFFICERS. 

7 (a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to au8 thorize the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting 

9 through the Assistant Secretary of Immigration and Cus10 toms Enforcement (referred to in this section as the ‘‘SecVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:33 May 22, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1442.IS S1442

bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
2 

•S 1442 IS

1 retary’’), to establish new units of Customs Patrol Officers 

2 (commonly known as ‘‘Shadow Wolves’’) during the 5-year 

3 period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act. 

4 (b) ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW UNITS.— 

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—During the 5-year period be6 ginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the 

7 Secretary is authorized to establish within United 

8 States Immigration and Customs Enforcement up to 

9 5 additional units of Customs Patrol Officers in ac10 cordance with this section, as appropriate. 

11 (2) MEMBERSHIP.—Each new unit established 

12 pursuant to paragraph (1) shall consist of up to 15 

13 Customs Patrol Officers. 

14 (c) DUTIES.—The additional Immigration and Cus15 toms Enforcement units established pursuant to sub16 section (b)(1) shall operate on Indian reservations (as de17 fined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 

18 (25 U.S.C. 1452)) located on or near (as determined by 

19 the Secretary) an international border with Canada or 

20 Mexico, and such other Federal land as the Secretary de21 termines to be appropriate, by— 

22 (1) investigating and preventing the entry of 

23 terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of ter24 rorism, narcotics, and other contraband into the 

25 United States; and 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
3 

•S 1442 IS

1 (2) carrying out such other duties as the Sec2 retary determines to be necessary. 

3 (d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

4 are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 

5 such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 

6 through 2013. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PRODPC74 with BILLS
IN THE MATTER OF THE 

APPLICATION OF BARRY 

RICHARD LENK TO RESIGN FROM 

THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN 

MARYLAND

*

*

*

*

*

*

 IN THE

 SUPREME COURT

 OF MARYLAND

 AG No. 59

 September Term, 2023 

ORDER

Upon consideration of the application to resign from the practice of law filed by 

Barry Richard Lenk on July 8, 2024, and Bar Counsel’s response to the application filed 

on July 22, 2024, advising that Bar Counsel conducted an investigation and is satisfied that 

the requirements of Rule 19-735(b) have been met and requests that the application be 

accepted, it is this 24th day of July 2024, 

ORDERED, by the Supreme Court of Maryland, that the resignation of Barry 

Richard Lenk from the Bar of the State of Maryland is accepted; and it is further

ORDERED, that, pursuant to Rule 19-735(e), the Clerk of this Court shall remove 

the name Barry Richard Lenk from the register of attorneys in the Court and certify that 

fact to the Trustees of the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and the Clerks of 

all judicial tribunals in this State; and it is further 

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall give any notice required by Rule 19-

707(e). 

 

 /s/ Shirley M. Watts

 Senior Justice
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23851]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,086]


Palm Beach Precision Molding Company, Including Workers Whose 
Wages Were Paid by Ultimate Staffing Service, d/b/a K-Industries, USA, 
LLC, Riviera Beach, FL; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding 
Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance on April 9, 2008, applicable to workers of 
K-Industries, USA, LLC, Riviera Beach, Florida. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2008 (73 FR 21991). The 
certification was amended on May 15, 2008 to include workers whose 
wages were reported under the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax account 
for Ultimate Staffing Service. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on May 21, 2008 (73 FR 29537)
    At the request of a State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of injection-molded plastic parts.
    New information provided by the State and the company shows that 
the correct name of the subject firm should read Palm Beach Precision 
Molding Company, d/b/a K-Industries, USA, LLC, including workers whose 
wages were paid by Ultimate Staffing Service, Riviera Beach, Florida.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
properly reflect this matter.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Palm Beach Precision Molding Company, d/b/a K-Industries, 
USA, LLC who were adversely affected by a shift in production to the 
Dominican Republic.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-63,086 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Palm Beach Precision Molding Company, d/b/a K-
Industries, USA, LLC, including workers whose wages were paid by 
Ultimate Staffing Service, Riviera Beach, Florida, who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 27, 
2007, through April 9, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also 
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under 
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of September 2008.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-23851 Filed 10-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE>
      <PAGE>1
 DATA STATED IN THOUSANDS


             VOLUNTARY SCHEDULE - CERTAIN FINANCIAL INFORMATION



REGULATION         STATEMENT CAPTION                   1998    1997    1996   

5-02 (1)            Cash and Cash Items               14223    13771    12506
5-02 (2)            Marketable Securities            102864    71176    75747
5-02 (3)(b)(1)      Notes Receivable                 278220   229277   211389
5-02 (4)            Allowance for Doubtful Accounts    3496     2789     2282
5-02 (15)           Total Assets                     421221   333288   313069

5-02 (24)           Other Liabilities                381940   300162   283466
5-02 (30)           Common Stock                       3245      751      732
5-02 (31)(a)(2)     Additional Capital Other          13892    10669    10097
5-02 (31)(a)(3)(ii) Retained Earnings-Unappropriated  22143    21705    18774
5-03 (b)(1)(e)      Other Revenues                    35431    30364    28150
5-03 (b)(2)(e)      Cost of Other Revenues            13901    11217    10498
5-03 (b)(8)         Interest and Amortization of
                    Debt Discount                     15215    12741    11959
5-03 (b)(10)        Income Before Taxes & Other Items  6315     6406     5693
5-03 (b)(11)        Income Tax Expense (Benefit)       2092     2160     1984
5-03 (b)(14)        Income/Loss from Continuing 
                    Operations                         4223     4246     3709
5-03 (b)(17)        Cumulative Change in Accounting 
                     Principle                            0        0        0
5-03 (b)(19)        Net Income or Loss                 4223     4246     3709
<PAGE>

                 AMENDMENT TO NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
                       (1999 STOCK OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN)


       This Amendment to Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement (this
"Amendment") is effective as of March 8, 2000 by and between TeleTech
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("TeleTech"), and Scott Thompson
("Optionee").

       WHEREAS, TeleTech and Optionee entered into that certain Non-Qualified
Stock Option Agreement dated October 18, 1999 (the "Agreement"); and

       WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend certain provisions contained in the
Agreement; and

       WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of TeleTech has approved the terms of
this Amendment.

       NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises set
forth in this Amendment, the parties agree as follows:

       1.     DEFINITIONS.  Capitalized terms used but not defined in this
Amendment shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Agreement.

       2.     AMENDMENT.  Section 3A(e) of the Agreement is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:

              3A(e)  VESTING BASED ON PERFORMANCE CRITERIA.  In the event
       that the average of the closing stock prices of TeleTech common
       stock on Nasdaq as reported in the Wall Street Journal over any
       120 consecutive days beginning after the date of the Agreement is
       equal to or exceeds any one of the per share prices set forth
       below, the corresponding percentage of the portion of the Option
       then remaining unvested shall vest and become immediately
       exercisable as of the last day of such 120 consecutive day period:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
           Price per Share            Percentage of Option Vested
           ---------------            ---------------------------
<S>                                   <C>
              $25.00                             25%
              $30.00                             50%
              $40.00                             75%
              $50.00                             100%
</TABLE>

       3.     OTHER TERMS UNCHANGED.  Except as expressly amended hereby, all
other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect and shall not be modified or affected by this Amendment.

<PAGE>

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

TELETECH HOLDINGS, INC.

By:    /s/ Michael Foss
       ------------------------
Name:  Michael Foss
       ------------------------
Title: Chief Financial Officer
       ------------------------




       /s/ Scott Thompson
       ---------------------
       Scott Thompson




















                                       2