alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ePlus Group Inc. et al., Appellants, v SNR Denton LLP, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 20]

*495Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered April 25, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the first, second, fourth and fifth counts of the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.

This action arises out of the alleged breach of a lease for IT equipment and services entered into by plaintiff and the now defunct law firm of Thacher Profitt & Wood (Thacher), a law firm that was organized as a Delaware limited liability partnership with its principal offices in New York. Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant law firm, also a limited liability partnership organized under Delaware law with offices in New York and elsewhere, alleging that it is Thacher’s successor in interest under the doctrine of de facto merger and is therefore liable for Thacher’s non-payment.

Contrary to the motion court’s determination, New York law applies. Although both defendant and Thacher were incorporated in Delaware, their offices are in New York and the alleged de facto merger took place in New York. Although the court correctly determined that there is a conflict of law, it failed to properly conduct the choice of law analysis. Accordingly, New York’s interest in this litigation is sufficient to warrant the application of New York law *(see Serio v Ardra Ins. Co.,*304 AD2d 362 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 516 [2003]). Notably, defendant has not asserted that it has any other ties to its place of organization.

We find that under New York law, the complaint properly alleges the elements of a de facto merger, including continuity of ownership (equity partners of Thacher became SNR equity partners), Thacher’s cessation of business, and SNR’s opening up at the same location with the same people, clients, management and operations *(Fitzgerald v Fahnestock & Co.,*286 AD2d 573 [1st Dept 2001]). We note that there is no basis to conclude that the law in this State with respect to de facto mergers does not apply to limited partnerships *(see*Limited Liability Company Law §§ 1213, 1216; *Hamilton Equity Group, LLC v Juan E. Irene, PLLC,*101 AD3d 1703, 1705 [4th Dept 2012]; *Zito v Fischbein Badillo Wagner Harding,*2005 NY Slip Op 30259[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2005]).

Additionally, plaintiff has properly alleged facts sufficient to give rise to its claim that defendant should be estopped from denying that it is Thacher’s successor in interest based on the theory of quasi-estoppel. Plaintiff alleges, on information and *496belief, that defendant represented that it is Thacher’s successor in interest for the purpose of obtaining a novation on contracts entered into with the federal government *(see American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v Payton Lane Nursing Home, Inc.,*704 F Supp 2d 177, 192-194 [ED NY 2010]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Mazzarelli, Freedman, Richter and Feinman, JJ.
11453.

#### Jackson *et al. v.*Dorsey, Governor.

Decided March 4, 1921.

Forfeiture of recognizance; from Fulton superior court — Judge Humphries. February 11, 1920.

*B. B. Jackson, John F. Echols,*for plaintiffs in error.

Stephens, J.

1. Where a scire facias has issued upon a forfeiture of a criminal recognizance, it is no defense by the surety that his principal was not brought to trial at the subsequent term of court after having made a legal demand for a trial at the former term as provided in the Penal Code (1910), § 983, when it does not appear that the principal had been discharged and acquitted or was legally entitled to be discharged and acquitted.

2. Voluntary absence from court (sucli as being a fugitive from justice) by one under a criminal charge, who made a demand for a trial at a former term of the court, amounts to a waiver of such demana and does not entitle him to a discharge and acquittal of the offense charged, as provided in the Penal Code, supra. *Flagg*v. *State,*11 *Ga. App.*37 (74 S. E. 562).

3. In view of the above ruling it is unnecessary to pass upon the other assignments of error as to rulings on the pleadings.

4. The brief of the evidence in this case consists of questions and answers and colloquies between the court and counsel, and it appearing that no bona fide effort has been made to brief the evidence as is required by law, this court will not consider any assignment of error in the determination of which it is necessary to inquire into the evidence, such as an exception to the directon of a verdict upon the ground that evidence was properly admitted or that the evidence raises an issue of fact for the jury. *Truehart*v. *State,*13 *Ga. App.*661(2) (79 S. E. 755), and cases cited.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.*
Exhibit 31.02

   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
                  2002 (Rule 13a-14(a) Certification)

I, Frank W. Backes, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of 3Si
Holdings, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data
and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material
weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the
Registrant's internal controls; and

6. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in
internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent
evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

By:/s/ Frank W. Backes
Frank W. Backes, CTO/CFO
Date:  May 14, 2004
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1923 

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

Employment and Training Administration, For National Programs 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, Employment and Training Administration, For National Programs 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, EMPLOYMENT AND 

5 TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, FOR NATIONAL 

6 PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Department of Labor, Employment and Training 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1923 IH

1 Administration, For National Programs for fiscal year 

2 2024 may not exceed $712,868,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

AMENDATORY AGREEMENT 

TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 

This AMENDATORY AGREEMENT (the “Amendatory Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the 7th day of August, 2015 by and among Lakeland Bancorp, Inc. (“Bancorp”), Lakeland Bank (the “Bank” and, collectively with Bancorp, the “Company”) and Joseph F. Hurley (the
“Executive”). 
 WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into a certain Change in Control Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2001, which
Agreement has been amended from time to time thereafter (as amended, the “Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Agreement
provides for certain terms and conditions of the Executive’s employment in the event of a “Change in Control” (as defined therein); and 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement to clarify certain terms of the severance to be paid thereunder;
and 
 WHEREAS, Section 16 of the Agreement permits the Agreement to be amended by a writing executed by the parties
thereto; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Company and the Executive hereby agree that, effective as of the date first above written, the
following sections are hereby amended: 
  

	 	1.	Section 1(c) of the Agreement (definition of the “Contract Period”) is hereby amended by deleting the noted subsection in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 


Contract Period. “Contract Period” shall mean the period commencing the day immediately preceding a Change in Control and
ending of the earlier of (i) the second anniversary of the Change in Control, (ii) June 30, 2017, or (iii) the death of the Executive.” 
  

	 	2.	Section 9 of the Agreement (“Termination Without Cause or Resignation for Good Reason”) is hereby amended by adding the following at the thereof: 


“For purposes of the foregoing, the Executive’s salary and cash bonus shall be determined without regard to any reductions to such
amounts made at the election of the Executive, including without limitation, reductions pursuant to any deferral election under a 401(k) plan or deferred compensation plan or arrangement or contributions made under a “cafeteria plan”
within the meaning of Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.” 







 Except as specifically provided herein to the contrary, the Agreement shall continue in full
force and effect. 
 [Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendatory Agreement to be executed and
the Executive has hereunto set his hand, all as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	EXECUTIVE:
	
	/s/ Joseph F. Hurley
		 	Joseph F. Hurley


  

	
	WITNESS:
	   


  

			
	LAKELAND BANCORP, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Thomas J. Shara
		 	Thomas J. Shara, President and CEO


  

	
	WITNESS:
	   


  

			
	LAKELAND BANK
		
	By:	 	/s/ Thomas J. Shara
		 	Thomas J. Shara, President and CEO


  

	
	WITNESS:
Exhibit 4.1


 





CELL SOURCE, INC.


65 Yigal Alon Street


Tel Aviv, Israel 67433


 





	 	June 1, 2015







 





Attn: Itamar Shimrat


 





Mr. Shimrat:


 


Reference is made to
the Promissory Notes (the “Notes”), dated November 14, 2014 and November 26, 2014, issued to you by Cell Source, Inc.
(the “Company”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Notes.


 


Pursuant to the Notes,
the Company was obligated to pay the amounts owed under the Notes six months after the date the Notes were issued.


 


It is hereby acknowledged
and agreed that any failure of the Company to pay the amounts owed under the Notes shall not constitute an Event of Default or
a condition entitling its holder to default interest or liquidated damages or any other damages.


 


It is further acknowledged
and agreed that the Notes shall be hereby amended such that the new Maturity Date under the Notes shall be October 30, 2015.


 


Except as modified
by this letter agreement, each term and condition of the each of the Notes shall remain in full force and effect. Each party hereto
hereby acknowledges and agrees to the terms set forth in this letter agreement, as evidenced by such party’s execution or
acknowledgement of this letter agreement below.


 


 





	CELL SOURCE, INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:		 
	Name:  	Yoram Drucker	 
	Title:	Chairman	 







 


 





	AGREED AND ACKNOWLEDGED:	 
	 	 	 
	ITAMAR ShiMRat	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	Name: Itamar Shimrat
Exhibit 12.2  CERTIFICATIONS  I, Peter Voser, certify that:  1.I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of ABB Ltd;  2.Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for,
the periods presented in this report;  4.The
companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:  (a)Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures
to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;  (b)Evaluated the
effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented
in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; and  (c)Disclosed in this
report any change in the companys internal control over financial reporting
that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5.The
companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a)All significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and  (b)Any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.   Date:  April 9, 2004   /s/ Peter VoserPeter VoserChief Financial Officer
VEREIT 06.30.2015 - EX 4.3


Exhibit 4.3




SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 
THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OF
ARC PROPERTIES OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.


This Second Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Third Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of ARC Properties Operating Partnership, L.P. (the “Partnership Agreement”), a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”), dated as of January 3, 2014 and as amended on January 26, 2015, is entered into as of July 28, 2015 by VEREIT, Inc., a Maryland corporation and the sole general partner of the Partnership (the “General Partner”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Partnership Agreement. 
WHEREAS, the undersigned General Partner desires to amend the Partnership Agreement as set forth in this Amendment; 
WHEREAS, pursuant Section 2.02 of the Partnership Agreement, the General Partner may amend the Partnership Agreement to reflect any change in the name of the Partnership; and
WHEREAS, the Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Limited Partnership of the Partnership was filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on July 28, 2015 (the “Certificate of Amendment”).
NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with, and pursuant to, the authority granted to the undersigned pursuant to Section 2.02 of the Partnership Agreement, the undersigned hereby agrees as follows:
1.    Amendments.  The Partnership Agreement is hereby amended to replace all references to the name “ARC Properties Operating Partnership, L.P.” with “VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P.”
2.    Miscellaneous.  The Partnership Agreement and this Amendment shall be read together and shall have the same effect as if the provisions of the Partnership Agreement and this Amendment were contained in one agreement.  Any provision of the Partnership Agreement not amended by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect as provided in the Partnership Agreement immediately prior to the date hereof.  After the date hereof, any reference to the Partnership Agreement shall mean the Partnership Agreement as modified by this Amendment.
 [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Partnership Agreement has been executed on this 28th day of July, 2015.
GENERAL PARTNER:


VEREIT, INC.




By:    /s/ Michael J. Sodo
Name: Michael J. Sodo
Title: Executive Vice President, Chief 
          Financial Officer and Treasurer
---



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Cash Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rick L. Wessel, 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 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, as amended; 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:  July 22, 2008



/s/ Rick L. WesselRick L. Wessel
Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-20702

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

ALVIN PRINCE JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

(H-97-CR-38-1)

November 6, 1998 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The judgment of the district cour t is AFFIRMED. S ee 5th R. 47.6.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-6426 

MICHAEL E. ALLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLARD JOBE, Administrator,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00384-WLO)

Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 24, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Alley, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Franklin Bryant,

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael E. Alley seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alley has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WHITNEY BANK, a Mississippi 

State Chartered Bank,

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0260-CG-M

)

RAR PROPERTIES, LLC, MARK 

RICHARDSON, and ALISON S. 

RICHARDSON,

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

CONSENT JUDGMENT

This matter came before the Court upon Plaintiff, Whitney Bank, and 

Defendants, RAR Properties, LLC, Alison S. Richardson and Mark Richardson’s 

Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment (Doc. 24).

Upon the agreement of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

and DECREED that: 

1. The Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment is GRANTED.

2. The Court hereby ENTERS final judgment in favor of Whitney Bank and 

against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $425,565.03 (the 

“Judgment Amount”) consisting of the amounts owing under loan number 8187 (the 

first loan) and loan number 6891 (the second loan) as referenced in the loan 

documents described in the complaint initiating the above-styled lawsuit (the “Loan 

Documents”), itemized as follows:

Case 1:15-cv-00260-CG-M Document 25 Filed 10/27/15 Page 1 of 2
Loan # 8187 

Principle $260,247.72

Accrued and unpaid interest $35,668.96

as of October 30, 2015

Forced placed insurance $2,590.63

Cost of collection including

Attorneys’ fees $4,000.00

Total $302,507.31

Loan # 6891

 Principle $104,244.12

Accrued and unpaid Interest

through October 30, 2015 $13,313.60

Forced placed insurance $1,500.00

Costs of collection including

Attorneys’ fees $4,000.00

Total $123,057.72

3. Post-judgment interest shall accrue at the statutory rate.

DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of October, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00260-CG-M Document 25 Filed 10/27/15 Page 2 of 2