alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Catharine Woodworth v. Francis R. Gorton.

*Quieting wife’s title as against husband’s creditors.*

A bill to quiet title as against an indefinite claim was properly sustained where the proofs showed that defendant had tried to sell the land under an invalid levy against complainant’s husband, and that the certificate of sale had been filed with the register of deeds.

On a bill to quiet a wife’s title to land upon which a levy had been made under a judgment against her husband, the suggestion that the husband’s creditors may attack the wife’s title is of no force where no such issue is raised by the answer and the defendant has not put himself in position to raise it on the proofs.

Appeal from Wayne.

Submitted June 16.

Decided June 22.

Bill to quiet title. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Henry M. Cheever*for complainant.

A bill to quiet title is not to fortify a bad one but to remove suspicions against a good one: *Stockton v. Williams*Walk. Ch. 120; complainant is not bound to show that defendant’s claim would be *prima facie*good at law: *Holbrook v. Winsor*23 Mich. 394; relief may be allowed against legal proceedings which, being defective, carry no title: *Grover v. Fox*36 Mich. 458; see *Eaton v. Trowbridge*38 Mich. 454; *Blodgett v. Dwight*id. 596; *Head v. Fordyce*17 Cal. 149; *Hartford v. Chipman*21 Conn. 488 ; *Vasser v. Henderson*40 Miss. 519; *Lounsbury v. Purdy*18 N. Y. 515 ; *Holland v. Mayor etc. of Baltimore*11 Md. 186.

*Ward & Palmer*for defendant.

Campbell, J.

Complainant filed her bill against defendant as owner and actual possessor of lands in Nankin,Wayne county, charging defendant with giving out and pretending some opposing claim which she could not ascertain, but which she believed to be under some pretence of levy. The bill prayed for a decree quieting the title.

Defendant filed an answer making no admissions of complainant’s rights, and denying that he had given out that he had any interest, but not disclaiming any interest in fact.

*325It appeared on the proofs that he had undertaken to sell the land under a levy against complainant’s husband, which was not made under a valid writ, and that the certificate of sale had been filed with the register of deeds. It also appeared that he had refused to release the claim. The court below decreed for the complainant.

Ve can see no reason for disturbing the decree. Defendant has not shown that it was filed without reason, and is not in a position to complain of the suit, because his own course made it proper. The suggestion that creditors of the husband might attack the wife’s title is of no force, because no such issue is raised by the answer, and defendant has not put himself in any position to raise such a question. The testimony is not taken so as to try any such question, and it would be not only acting on a foreign controversy, but acting without any sufficient light to consider i or discuss the possibilities of such a state of things.

The decree must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
Exhibit 10.2


 


ACTINIUM
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE

AMENDED AND RESTATED 2013 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


WHEREAS,
Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Amended and Restated
2013 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) to provide for equity incentive compensation awards to employees, directors
and consultants of the Company; and


 


WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company to amend the Plan to provide
for accelerated vesting of all awards granted under the Plan (whether granted prior to or after this amendment) in the event of
a change in control of the Company.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Company does hereby amend the Plan, effective August 6, 2015, as follows:


 


		1.	Section
                                         7.4(d)(i) of the Plan is hereby amended
                                         to read in its entirety as follows:



 


“Unless
otherwise provided in this Plan or the applicable Award Agreement, a Participant must be employed by the Company on the last day
of a Performance Period to be eligible for payment in respect of a Performance Compensation Award for such Performance Period.”


 


		2.	Section
                                         12.1 of the Plan is hereby amended to read in its entirety
                                         as follows:



 


“Notwithstanding
any provision of the Plan or any Award Agreement to the contrary, in the event of a Change in Control, each outstanding Award
shall become immediately vested and the Performance Goals with respect to each outstanding Performance Share Award and Performance
Compensation deemed satisfied at the “target” level, in each case effective immediately prior to the Change of Control.”


 


	 	3.	Except as explicitly set forth herein, the Plan will remain in full force
and effect.




 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this amendment to the Plan to be executed as of the effective date set forth above by
its duly authorized officer.


 


	 	ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS,
    INC.
	 	 
	 	/s/
    Kaushik J. Dave
	 	Name:  Kaushik J.
    Dave
	 	Title:    Chief Executive
    Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60133

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DEWEY TALBERT WHITFIELD,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:90-CR-84-D

- - - - - - - - - -

October 19, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dewey Talbert Whitfield appeals his sentence following the

revocation of his supervised release. 

He argues the following: 1) the court’s sentence was an

unwarranted departure under the guidelines because his case falls

within the heartland of cases contemplated by the guidelines; 

2) the length of the sentence was unreasonable; 3) the court

erred by considering his conduct which occurred after the 
No. 98-60133

-2-

 

** This argument relies upon authority applicable to a

sentence, after revocation of probation, imposed pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3565, which since has been amended. See United States

v. Pena, 125 F.3d 285, 287 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.

Ct. 1527 (1998). Whitfield was sentenced pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583.

original sentence from conviction;** and 4) the court’s sua

sponte upward departure violated his right to notice of the

departure, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32. The relevant

guidelines are only advisory; they do not control the district

court’s imposition of sentence subsequent to revocation of

supervised release. See United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87,

91-93 (5th Cir. 1994). Rule 32(c) notice is not applicable. See

id. at 93 n.13; United States v. Marvin, 135 F.3d 1129, 1141-43

(7th Cir. 1998). Our review of the record reveals that the

court’s sentence was not plainly unreasonable. See Mathena, 23

F.3d at 93-94.

AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Roberto Velasquez, Appellant.

[972 NYS2d 678]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered December 19, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence was properly denied, based on the plain view doctrine, which “rests on the premise that police should be able to seize incriminating evidence in plain view if they had the right to be where they were when they saw it. . . . [L]aw enforcement officers may properly seize an item in ‘plain view’ without a warrant if (i) they are lawfully in a position to observe the item; (ii) they have lawful access to the item itself when they seize it; and (iii) the incriminating character of the item is immediately apparent” *836
      *(People v Brown,*96 NY2d 80, 88-89 [2001]; *see People v Diaz,*81 NY2d 106, 110 [1993]; *see also Horton v California,*496 US 128, 136-137 [1990]).

Here, the first two criteria were satisfied by the hearing court’s factual finding, which is supported by the record, that the defendant’s wife consented to the entry by a parole officer and two police officers into the defendant’s home and to the opening of a bedroom closet in that home *(see People v Gomez,*204 AD2d 656, 657 [1994]). With respect to the third criterion, the seizure of a distinctive Smith & Wesson gun box, which was recognized as such by the officers, was justified by the immediately apparent incriminating nature of the box, thus giving the officers probable cause to believe that it contained contraband *(see Texas v Brown,*460 US 730, 741 [1983]; *United States v Davis,*690 F3d 226, 235 [4th Cir 2012]).

Moreover, we reject the defendant’s argument that he was improperly charged with the class C felony of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, because he possessed the loaded firearm in his home. “Where a defendant has been previously convicted of any crime, the possession of a loaded firearm is, per se, a class C felony [‘criminal possession a weapon in the second degree,’ Penal Law § 265.03 (3)], regardless of whether the possessor possessed the firearm in his or her ‘home or place of business’ *(see*Penal Law §§ 265.01 [1]; 265.02 [1], [4]). There is no ‘exception’ ” to this rule *(People v Sams,*19 Misc 3d 1133[A]; 2008 NY Slip Op 50993[U], *2-3 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]; *see People v Jones,*103 AD3d 411, 412 [2013]; *People v Hughes,*83 AD3d 960, 961 [2011], *lv granted*19 NY3d 961 [2012]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Cohen, JJ., concur.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposal and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposal, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         January 15, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20892-9304, (301) 435-6680,                         *skandasa@mail.nih.gov*.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: December 24, 2014.

Michelle Trout,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-30615 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Ex 10.298 - Endo___RRA_Counterpart_re__2025_Notes


Exhibit 10.298




Counterpart to Registration Rights Agreement
July 9, 2015
The undersigned hereby absolutely, unconditionally and irrevocably agrees as a Guarantor, as defined in the Registration Rights Agreement, dated January 27, 2015 by and among Endo Finance LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Endo Finco Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Endo Limited, an Irish private limited company, the Guarantors party thereto, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., relating to the 6.00% Senior Notes due 2025, to be bound by the terms and provisions of such Registration Rights Agreement.







Exhibit 10.298




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this counterpart as of the date first written above.




	
			
	 	ISHIRINI LIMITED (TO BE RENAMED ENDO FINANCE III LIMITED)

	 
	 	as a Guaranteeing Subsidiary






	
		
	By:
	/s/ Orla Dunlea

	Name:
	Orla Dunlea

	Title:
	Director







[Signature to Registration Rights Agreement Counterpart – 6.00% Senior Notes due 2025]
#### Ray & W Cut Inc., Respondent, v 240 West 37 LLC, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 309]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered January 23, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff tenant’s motion for a *Yellowstone*injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff established its entitlement to a *Yellowstone*injunction upon its demonstration that it held a commercial lease, had received a notice to cure from defendant landlord, had requested injunctive relief prior to the expiration of the cure period and termination of the lease, and demonstrated that it was prepared and maintained the ability to cure the alleged default *(see Graubard Mollen Horowitz Pomeranz & Shapiro v 600 Third Ave. Assoc.,*93 NY2d 508, 514 [1999]; *225 E. 36th St. Garage Corp. v 221 E. 36th Owners Corp.,*211 AD2d 420, 421 [1995]). Indeed, plaintiff showed its willingness and ability to cure its default pertaining to the lease’s insurance requirements by presenting the court with a certificate of insurance providing for 30 days’ notice of default to the landlord, as required by the lease. That the certificate of insurance stated that the issuing insurer would “endeavor” to provide 30 days’ notice does not warrant a different determination.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ. *[See*2008 NY Slip Op 30174(G).]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

374 

CA 12-00260 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

GILBERTO AGUDO MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

APRIL M. REMBERT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

GILBERTO AGUDO MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP, ROCHESTER (MARK T. WHITFORD, JR., OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

 

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (John Lewis

DeMarco, J.), entered December 22, 2011. The order affirmed a

judgment of the Rochester City Court. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff appeals from an order affirming City

Court’s judgment in favor of defendant in this small claims action.

The record establishes that plaintiff and defendant gave different

versions of the automobile accident, raising a credibility issue for

the factfinder to resolve (see generally Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d

125, 126-127, lv dismissed 95 NY2d 898; Moses v Randolph, 236 AD2d

706, 707). We affirm the order, inasmuch as we agree with County

Court that “substantial justice has . . . been done between the

parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law”

(UCCA 1807; see Mead Home Improvement, Inc. v Goldstein, 56 AD3d 1179,

1179). Contrary to plaintiff’s further contention, there is no

indication that City Court was biased against him (see Makas v

Every, 224 AD2d 793, 794, appeal dismissed 88 NY2d 867).

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,631,528
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,069,241
<ALLOWANCES>                                    58,470
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,902,694
<PP&E>                                         693,647
<DEPRECIATION>                                 308,153
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,897,554
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,697,351
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     33,333
<COMMON>                                        93,975
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,072,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,897,554
<SALES>                                      1,257,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,257,061
<CGS>                                          431,464
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,435,548
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,147,241)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,147,241)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,147,241)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Certificate Number 
ZQ
    
    Shares
 [SunCom Wireless logo]
 SUNCOM WIRELESS HOLDINGS, INC.
 CLASS A COMMON STOCK 
PAR VALUE $0.01
    
    CLASS A COMMON STOCKTHIS CERTIFICATE IS TRANSFERABLE
IN CANTON, MA AND JERSEY CITY, NJCUSIP 86722Q 10 8SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONSTRANSFER OF THIS CERTIFICATE IS
RESTRICTED SEE LEGEND ON 
REVERSE SIDE.
   
 SunCom Wireless Holdings, Inc. (hereinafter called the Company)
 In Witness Whereof
  Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer
    
    DATED
  COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A.
TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRARSecretary
    
    By,AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE




---



##### 



TEN COM  as tenants in common
TEN ENT  as tenants by the entireties
JT TEN  as joint tenants with right of
                    survivorship and not as tenants
    
    UNIF GIFT MIN ACT-  Custodian 
                    
                    
    
(Cust)                        (Minor) 
under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act____________________
                    
                    
                    
             (State) 
UNIF TRF MIN ACT  Custodian (until age___)
                    
                    
(Cust)                                        (Minor)under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act 
                    
                    
                    
             (State)
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 Signature(s) Guaranteed: Medallion Guaranteed StampTHE SIGNATURE(S) SHOULD BE GUARANTEED BY AN
ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks,
Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations
and Credit Unions) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN
APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION
PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 11.0


                             BTU INTERNATIONAL, INC.
        CALCULATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
             (Dollars in thousands, except share and per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           For the Three Months Ended       For the Six Months Ended
                                           --------------------------       -------------------------
                                            June 27,         June 28,        June 27,        June 28,
                                             1999             1998            1999             1998
                                           ---------        ---------       ---------       ---------
<S>                                        <C>              <C>             <C>             <C>

Net income                                 $     608        $     480       $   1,152       $     606
                                           ---------        ---------       ---------       ---------
Net income applicable to
     common stockholders                   $     608        $     480       $   1,152       $     606
                                           =========        =========       =========       =========
Weighted average number of
  shares outstanding:
     Basic Shares                          6,795,272        7,153,569       6,799,744       7,214,396
     Effect of Dilutive Options              129,512           57,945         111,768          71,644
                                           ---------        ---------       ---------       ---------
     Diluted Shares                        6,924,784        7,211,514       6,911,512       7,286,040
                                           =========        =========       =========       =========
Earnings per Share
     Basic                                 $    0.09        $    0.07       $    0.17       $    0.08
     Diluted                               $    0.09        $    0.07       $    0.17       $    0.08
                                           =========        =========       =========       =========

</TABLE>























                                       14