alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Helene Gottlieb, Appellant, v Northriver Trading Company LLC et al., Respondents. Northriver Trading Com*551pany LLC et al., Counterclaimant Respondent, v Philip Got-tlieb, Also Known as Feivel Gottlieb, Additional Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 46]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered May 14, 2007, which dismissed the complaint, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their sixth counterclaim and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for discovery, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, the complaint reinstated, defendants’ motion denied, and plaintiffs cross motion granted to compel discovery on an extended schedule to be approved by the court.

Contrary to the court’s ruling, members of a limited liability company may seek an equitable accounting under common law. The assertion that such members are limited to statutory remedies with regard to potential fraud is inconsistent with the reasoning in *Tzolis v Wolff*(10 NY3d 100 [2008]). Furthermore, while plaintiff’s sole claim was for an accounting, the ad damnum of her complaint did seek monetary damages based on misallocation of the company’s assets, and the case should thus be permitted to go forward. Issues of fact also preclude summary judgment on the losses in the trading account. Plaintiff raised a number of factual issues as to her prior payment of losses in other subaccounts, and whether those losses were ever charged to other members. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Gonzalez, Sweeny, Ren wick and DeGrasse, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 31200(U).]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6722
GUYN RALPH MCGEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GARY WATERS, Sheriff; DOCTOR PENALOSA; J. SMITH, Classification; PORTSMOUTH CITY JAIL, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-94-19-3) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Guyn Ralph McGee, Appellant Pro Se. John Dinshaw McIntyre, WILLCOX & SAVAGE, Norfolk, Virginia; Carolyn Porter Oast, Teresa Rejent Warner, John Anders Heilig, Robert Moreland, HEILIG, MCKENRY, FRAIM & LOLLAR, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to trial by a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's * order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion granting partial summary judgment and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the court's final judgment order. McGee v. Waters , No. CA-94-19-3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDATORY AGREEMENT 

TO EMPLOYMENT 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 Thomas J. Shara (the
“Executive”). 
 WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into a certain Employment Agreement, dated as of April 2, 2008 (the
“Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Agreement provides for certain severance in the event of the Executive’s
involuntary termination of employment following 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 in such event; and 

WHEREAS, Section 14 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, Section 5(h)(v) of
the Agreement (defining “Change in Control Severance Amount”) is hereby amended by adding the following at the thereof: 

“For purposes of the foregoing, the Executive’s salary and highest annual bonus shall be determined without regard to any reductions
to any salary or bonus 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 Code.” 
 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/ Thomas J. Shara
		 	Thomas J. Shara


  

	
	WITNESS:
	   


  

			
	LAKELAND BANCORP, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Mary Ann Deacon
		 	Mary Ann Deacon, Chairman


  

	
	WITNESS:
	   


  

			
	LAKELAND BANK
		
	By:	 	/s/ Mary Ann Deacon
		 	Mary Ann Deacon, Chairman


  

	
	WITNESS:
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2026 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2026

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
     Education, Student Financial Assistance 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 
     Education, Student Financial Assistance for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              EDUCATION, STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 
              2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Education, 
Student Financial Assistance for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $0.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
     INTERLINE RESOURCES CORPORATION'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
     ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     214,715

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         214,715
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,098,535
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    31,245
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,368,141
<PP&E>                                         6,705,384
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,068,085)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,503,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,641,347
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       70,330
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,503,297
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2,750,496
<CGS>                                          2,039,462
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  859,134
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,500)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             183,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (329,649)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (329,649)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (329,649)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)



</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 29, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David V. Singer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) the Report fully
complies with the requirements 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 financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/ David V. Singer





David V. Singer


Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


November 8, 2002
Exhibit 21.1  Significant Subsidiaries of Registrant  iBasis
  Securities CorporationMayanet
  LLCiBasis
  Global, Inc.iBasis
  Holdings, Inc.iBasis
  Retail, Inc.InkaNet, Inc.KPN
  International Network Services, Inc.
  iBasis Netherlands B.V(formerly KPN Global Carrier Services
  B.V.)KPN
  Wholesale Voice Service HK LimitedKPN
  Eurovoice Singapore Pte LimitediBasis
  Europe LimitediBasis
  Australia Pty LimitediBasis
  FZ LLCiBasis
  Israel LimitediBasis
  Japan K.K.iBasis
  Argentina SRLiBasis
  Brazil Ltda.iBasis
  Hong Kong LimitediBasis Mexico S. de C.V.iBasis
  Peru S.A.iBasis
  Singapore Pte. LimitedInnovatel Servicos de Communicacoes Ltd.LD
  Telecom S.A.C.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

Nos. 04-18-00458-CR, 04-18-00459-CR & 04-18-00460-CR

Victor RIGGAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. CR171326, CR171327 & CR171328

Honorable Susan Harris, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgments of the trial court are 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED April 10, 2019.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

M.C., the mother,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1931 

[October 20, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Howard H. Harrison, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2015-DP300295-XXXX-MB.

Gary L. Pickett, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Meridith K. Hall, Bradenton, for appellee. 

Sara E. Goldfarb, Sanford, for Guardian ad Litem Program. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LEVINE, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT
32





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Bay National Corporation
(the “Company”) each certifies that to the best of his knowledge the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and the information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.








/s/Hugh
W. Mohler





Hugh W.
Mohler


Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer


March 30,
2009








/s/ David
E. Borowy





David E.
Borowy


Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


March
30, 2009





This
certification is made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is
not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document,
and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person for any reason other
than as specifically required by law.
#### Marie Alexis, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[975 NYS2d 334]

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered April 19, 2012, which, upon reargument, granted defendant City of New York’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff tripped and fell on a snow-covered sidewalk abutting a property owned by the City. Contrary to the motion court’s conclusion, the City, as owner of the abutting property, which is not a building within the exception for one-to-three family residential properties, owed plaintiff a nondelegable duty to clear *528the snow from the sidewalk within a reasonable time *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-210 [b], [c]; *Rodriguez v City of New York,*70 AD3d 450 [1st Dept 2010]).

The conflicting meteorological evidence presented by plaintiff and the City raised triable issues of fact as to whether a reasonable time had elapsed between the cessation of the storm and plaintiffs accident *(see Mosley v General Chauncey M. Hooper Towers Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.,*48 AD3d 379 [1st Dept 2008]; *Powell v MLG Hillside Assoc.,*290 AD2d 345 [1st Dept 2002]; *see also Garricks v City of New York,*1 NY3d 22 [2003]; *Valentine v City of New York,*86 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 1982], *affd*57 NY2d 932 [1982]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
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

###### Administration for Children and Families

# AGENCY:

Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice of request for information.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 23, 2014, (79 FR 63406) requesting public comments to inform its upcoming Report to Congress. The Report to Congress is required to be submitted no later than June 30, 2015, under title III, section 305 of H.R. 4980 (Pub. L. 113-183), Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2014. ACF stated in the notice that the request for information would remain open until December 22, 2014, for the receipt of public comments. To provide the public with more time to comment, ACF extends the period of time for which the comments will remain open.                    

                        To provide clarification on the first bullet point under the Background Section, which was truncated in the first                         **Federal Register**                         Notice, please consider the following: A review of the effectiveness of state child support programs and collection practices and an analysis of the extent to which the practices result in unintended consequences or performance issues.                    

# DATES:

Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. on February 27, 2015, to be considered.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The Office of Child Support Enforcement at                         *OCSEreport@acf.hhs.gov*.                    

Dated: December 19, 2014.

Donna Bonar,

Deputy Comissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2014-30285 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6568

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

ANDRE LAMAR RICKS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:06-cr-00171-RDB-2; 1:08-cv-01061-RDB) 

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 19, 2009 

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, 

Kentucky, for Appellant. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant 

United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

 Andre Lamar Ricks seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Ricks has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability 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 Matter of Victor Valerio, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, et al., Respondents.

[825 NYS2d 574]

*939Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered March 31, 2006 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner is currently serving an aggregate prison sentence of 11 to 24 years for robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. In March 2005, petitioner made his initial appearance before respondent Board of Parole and his request for parole release was denied. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. The parole hearing interview and the Board’s decision establish that the Board appropriately considered the relevant statutory factors as set forth in Executive Law § 259-i (2) (c) (A), including the nature of the instant offenses, petitioner’s lack of a criminal history, positive institutional and educational achievements, letters of recommendation, excellent disciplinary record and plans to reintegrate into society upon release. Although the Board placed particular emphasis on the violent nature of the instant offenses, which it found demonstrated petitioner’s “propensity toward violence” and indicated that there was a “reasonable probability that [petitioner] would continue to commit crimes and place the public at risk” if released, the Board “was not required to equally weigh or discuss each statutory factor or reward petitioner’s achievements while incarcerated” *(Matter of Webb v Travis,*26 AD3d 614, 615 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 709 [2006]; *see Matter of Yourdon v New York State Div. of Parole,*32 AD3d 1065, 1066 [2006]; *Matter of Coombs v New York State Div. of Parole, 25*AD3d 1051 [2006]). Inasmuch as the record does not support petitioner’s claim that the Board’s decision evinces “irrationality bordering on impropriety,” judicial intervention is precluded *(Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; *see Matter of Baez v Dennison, 25*AD3d 1052, 1053 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 713 [2006]).

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.