alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Jean Marc Desmarat, Petitioner, v Mark Dwyer, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 576]

Eroceeding pursuant to CFLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondent, Mark Dwyer, an acting Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, to determine the petitioner’s motion pursuant to CFLR 5015 to vacate a prior order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, denying his motion pursuant to CEL 440.10, made in a criminal proceeding entitled *People v Desmarat,*pending in that court under indictment No. 4409/02, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CFLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied as academic, and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

*996The instant proceeding has been rendered academic in light of the order of the respondent dated September 17, 2013. Eng, P.J., Hall, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.2

 

AMENDMENT NO. 5

TO THE

ECOLAB EXECUTIVE DEATH BENEFITS PLAN

(As Amended and Restated effective March 1, 1994)

 

WHEREAS, Ecolab Inc. (the “Company”) has established and currently maintains the Ecolab Executive Death Benefits Plan (As Amended and Restated effective as of March 1, 1994) and as subsequently amended (the “Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to extend post retirement death benefits to any Executive participating in the Plan on January 1, 2015, who has attained age 58 as of January 1, 2015, terminates employment on or after January 1, 2017, and remains employed in good standing by the Company or a member of the Controlled Group through such date.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 5.1 of the Ecolab Inc. Administrative Document for Non-Qualified Benefit Plans (the “Administrative Document”) and subject to Section 1.3 of the Plan, the Company hereby amends the Plan as set forth below. Words used herein with initial capital letters that are defined in the Plan or the Administrative Document are used herein as so defined.

 

Section 2.7 is amended effective May 6, 2015, by adding the following sentence to the end of such Section:

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing, an Executive who is participating in the Plan on January 1, 2015, who has attained age 58 as of January 1, 2015, terminates employment on or after January 1, 2017, and remains employed in good standing by the Company or a member of the Controlled Group through such date, shall be treated as having Retired from the Company on the date of such Executive’s termination of employment.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Ecolab Inc. has executed this Amendment No. 5 this 6th day of May, 2015.

 

	
 
    	
ECOLAB   INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
/s/ Douglas   M. Baker, Jr.
    
	
 
    	
Douglas   M. Baker, Jr.
    
	
 
    	
Chief   Executive Officer
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
Attest:
    	
/s/ David   F. Duvick
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
David   F. Duvick
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Assistant   Secretary
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 20, 2014, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Pistoia Alliance, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Hewlett-Packard Company, Palo Alto, CA; Etzard Stotle (individual member), Arlesheim, SWITZERLAND; Patcore Inc., Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN; and University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, UNITED KINGDOM, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on July 15, 2009 (74 FR 34364).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 5, 2014. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on October 9, 2014 (79 FR 61098).                

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2014-30670 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>


                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2



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

         In connection with the Annual Report of iBasis, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard Tennant, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18, United States Code, that this Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


                                        By:        /s/ Richard Tennant
                                           ------------------------------------
                                                      Richard Tennant
                                           Chief Financial Officer (Principal
                                                        Financial
                                             Officer and Principal Accounting
                                                        Officer)

Date: March 26, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY MOBLEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CA 16-0046-CG-C

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social 

Security,

)

)

)

)

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social 

Security denying plaintiff benefits be reversed and remanded pursuant to sentence 

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), see Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 111 S.Ct. 2157, 

115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991), for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. 

The remand pursuant to sentence four of § 405(g) makes the plaintiff a prevailing 

party for purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, Shalala v. 

Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 112 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993), and terminates this 

Court’s jurisdiction over this matter. 

DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of September, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00046-CG-C Document 18 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,711
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      770
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,481
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,393,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,044
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,393,352
<SALES>                                            900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   900
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                83,461
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (82,561)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (82,561)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82,561)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 5 -00 787 -CV Gilbert & Maxwell, P LLC; Ke ith Gilbert and William L. Maxwell , Appellan ts v. Texas Mutual Ins urance Com pany , Appellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 201S T JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN20096 7 , HO NORAB LE W. JEANNE MEURER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

C O N C U R

R I N G O P I N I O N I c o n c ur i nth e j u d g m e nto n l y.

__________________________________________

J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Puryear Filed: De cembe r 19, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Javon Peterson, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 622]

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered February 24, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

*1196Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record establishes that his waiver of the right to appeal was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). County Court thoroughly reviewed the consequences of the waiver with defendant, defendant expressed his understanding of those consequences and waived the right to appeal both orally and in writing. Furthermore, the plea bargain was reasonable. We reject defendant’s contention that the waiver of the right to appeal is against public policy (see *generally People v Muniz,*91 NY2d 570, 573-574 [1998]).

Although the contention of defendant that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered survives the waiver of the right to appeal (see *People v Holifield,*34 AD3d 1316 [2006]; *People v DeJesus,*248 AD2d 1023 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 878 [1998]), by failing to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review (see *DeJesus,*248 AD2d at 1023). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s contention is without merit (see *generally People v Seeber,*4 NY3d 780, 780-781 [2005]). The contention of defendant that his factual colloquy was insufficient, thereby rendering his plea involuntary, is not supported by the record, which establishes that defendant admitted the underlying factual allegations of the crime and responded to questions regarding details of the crime. Present—Scudder, EJ., Martoche, Centra and Green, JJ.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRANCE KEOKI CALLEN, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL NO. 09-0068-CG-C

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CRIMINAL NO. 06-0176-011-CG

Respondent. :

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that petitioner’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence,

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, be DISMISSED as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255(f). Additionally, the claim raised by Callen in his § 2255 motion has no merit.

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2009.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 678 Filed 04/16/09 Page 1 of 1
Page 1







Page2







Page 3







Page 4







Page 5







Page 6







Page 7







Page 8







Page 9







Page 10







Page 11







Page 12







Page 13







Page 14







Page 15







Page 16







Page 17







Page 18







Page 19







Page 20







Page 21







Page 22







Page 23







Page 24







Page 25







Page 26







Page 27







Page 28







Page 29





Page 30







Page 31
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 2, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00070-CV 

JILL BURCH-JOHNSON, INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE 

OF JACKIE LEE BURCH, DECEASED AND JILL BURCH-JOHNSON, 

INDIVIDUALLY, Appellant 

V. 

21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 296-03831-2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Smith, Miskel, and Breedlove 

Opinion by Justice Smith 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. After appellant failed to respond to 

our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without 

a reporter’s record and for appellant’s brief to be filed by May 16, 2024. By postcard 

dated May 20, 2024, we informed appellant her brief was overdue and directed 

appellant to file a brief within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so 

would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP.
 –2– 

P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed a brief nor otherwise corresponded 

with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

240070F.P05 

 

/Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JILL BURCH-JOHNSON, 

INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF JACKIE LEE 

BURCH, DECEASED AND JILL 

BURCH-JOHNSON, 

INDIVIDUALLY, Appellant 

No. 05-24-00070-CV V. 

21ST MORTGAGE 

CORPORATION, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 296th Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 296-03831-

2022. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. 

Justices Miskel and Breedlove 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered July 2, 2024
11740.

#### WELLS *v.*McMAHON.

Refusal to sanction a certiorari upon tie ground that the verdict and judgment were contrary to tire evidence, unsupported by evidence, and contrary to tlie principles of justice and equity, was not error where a part of the evidence, which was conflicting, supported the verdict.

Decided March 8, 1921.

Petition for certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Humphries. June 16, 1920.

*Boy*Lewis, for plaintiff in error. *Anderson & Slate,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

In the municipal court of Atlanta Mrs. McMahon sued Wells on a promissory note. Admitting that the *398amount sued for was correct, the defendant pleaded a set-off. On conflicting evidence the jury found for the plaintiff the full amount sued for. The defendant applied for a writ of certiorari, alleging that “ said verdict and said judgment thereon was contrary to the evidence, without evidence to support it, and contrary to the principles of justice and equity.” The judge of the superior court refused to sanction the certiorari, and in his order said: “The evidence warranted the verdict; the jury were the judges of the credibility of the witnesses; they had the right, if they saw fit, to believe the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, which was in conflict with the testimony of the witnesses for the defendant.” It is well settled that the jury are the final arbiters on questions of fact, and where they have passed on the evidence and no error of law is shown, their finding is final. The judge of the superior court properly refused to sanction the certiorari.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Broyles, *G.*J., *and*Lulce, *J., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES K. BRELAND, JR., et

al.,

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-158-CG-C

LEVADA EF FIVE, LLC,

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the separate Order entered this date in the abovestyled case it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that 

JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Defendant Levada EF Five, LLC and 

against Plaintiffs Charles K. Breland, Jr.; Osprey Utah, LLC; Water Canyon 

Holdings, LLC; Range Creek Holdings, LLC; and Utah Reserve Exchange, 

LLC, jointly and severally, in the total amount of $2,397,695.94.

DONE and ORDERED, this 28th day of April, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00158-CG-C Document 192 Filed 04/28/16 Page 1 of 1
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1940 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, 

Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of Labor, Special Benefits for Disabled Coal 

Miners for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, SPECIAL BENEFITS 

5 FOR DISABLED COAL MINERS FOR FISCAL 

6 YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Labor, Special Benefits for DisVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:13 Apr 14, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1940.IH H1940

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1940 IH

1 abled Coal Miners for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

2 $10,319,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
CJES 6.30.2015 EX. Part.Agree ME




Exhibit 10.18




C&J INTERNATIONAL MIDDLE EAST FZCO  
PHANTOM EQUITY ARRANGEMENT
US 3312040v.5
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
___________, 2015
[Participant Name]
[Address]
[City, State Zip]


		
	Re:
	Participation in the C&J International Middle East FZCO Phantom Equity Arrangement


Dear _______________: 
You have been selected by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of C&J Energy Services Ltd. (the “Parent”) to receive an award of Phantom Units (the “Award”) in consideration of and appreciation for your continued services and contributions to the Parent, to C&J International Middle East FZCO, a free zone company in the Jebel Ali Free Zone (the “Company”), or to any subsidiary of the Parent or the Company.  
The Award is being granted to you pursuant to the C&J International Middle East FZCO Phantom Equity Arrangement (the “Arrangement”), a sub-plan of the C&J Energy Services 2015 Long Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”).  Copies of the Arrangement and the Plan are being furnished to you concurrently with this Participation Agreement (this “Agreement”) and shall be deemed a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the Arrangement or the Plan, as applicable.  
The number of Phantom Units subject to the Award shall be ______________. Payment of the Award is subject to the satisfaction of the vesting conditions set forth in Section 5.1 of the Arrangement. Following the satisfaction of the vesting conditions, the Award will become payable in accordance with Section 6 of the Arrangement; provided that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 6.1 of the Arrangement, the Parent may assign its payment obligation with respect to the Award to a Subsidiary subject to the approval of the Subsidiary in writing. In the event that you experience a termination of employment prior to the settlement of the Award, however, please see Section 5.3 of the Arrangement for a discussion of events that could result in either a potential acceleration of vesting or a forfeiture of the Award. 
By executing this Agreement, you indicate that you have read, understand, and agree to the terms of this Agreement, the Arrangement and the Plan.  Please execute and return a copy of this Agreement to the Parent prior to [_________, 20__], to indicate your acceptance of the terms and conditions applicable to the Award pursuant to this Agreement, the Arrangement and the Plan.  The Parent will not make payment to you of the Award unless the Parent has received a signed copy of this Agreement.  

1






The Parent is very pleased to be able to offer the Award to you and truly appreciates your dedication and commitment to the Parent, the Company and their affiliates.  We are excited about the future and look forward to your success.  


	
					
	 
	 
	 
	C&J ENERGY SERVICES LTD.

	 
	 
	 
	By:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	Name:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	Title:
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 






 
ACCEPTED:
____________________________
 
[Participant]
____________________________
 
 [Date]

2