alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### IDT Corporation, Appellant, v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. et al., Respondents.

[967 NYS2d 51]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered October 26, 2012, which granted defendants’ motion for an order precluding evidence to the extent of finding an “at issue” waiver of the attorney-client privilege and work-product protections, and ordered plaintiff to produce several former litigators for deposition, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.

In the remaining fraud claims that were not previously dismissed *(see IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,*63 AD3d 583 [1st Dept 2009]), plaintiff alleges that defendant Morgan Stanley fraudulently misrepresented that it had produced all documents responsive to a subpoena served in a prior arbitration proceeding between plaintiff and a third party, that it reasonably relied on that representation, and that it suffered pecuniary losses as a result of defendant’s fraudulent concealment of additional documents because the arbitration panel would have awarded it greater damages had it been aware of the concealed documents. Defendant sought discovery concerning, among other things, plaintiffs arbitration counsels’ reliance on its representation that the document production *452was complete and the litigation strategy plaintiff’s counsel would have pursued had the concealed documents been produced during the arbitration. After plaintiff invoked the attorney-client privilege, defendant brought a motion to preclude, arguing that an “at issue” waiver of privilege had occurred.

Although the privileged information sought by defendant is relevant to plaintiffs fraud claims, plaintiff disavows any intention to use privileged materials and defendant fails to show that the materials are necessary to determine the validity of the claims or to its defense against them *(see Nomura Asset Capital Corp. v Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP,*62 AD3d 581 [1st Dept 2009]; *Veras Inv. Partners, LLC v Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,*52 AD3d 370 [1st Dept 2008]). Accordingly, defendant failed to establish that an “at issue” waiver of the attorney-client privilege occurred. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Renwick, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,415,388
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (74,092)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,429,397
<PP&E>                                       8,440,653
<DEPRECIATION>                               (707,292)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,463,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          139,773
<BONDS>                                         58,318
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,672,519
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,407,088)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,463,522
<SALES>                                        121,659
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               176,956
<CGS>                                           64,553
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,553
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               829,897
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,694
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (723,188)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (723,188)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (723,188)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.46)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           0
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 0
<PP&E>                                           0
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            0
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                    130133
<OTHER-SE>                                 (130133)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     0
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 0
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
10.22


 


AMENDMENT
TO THE INVESTMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON JULY 19, 2013, BETWEEN AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL FASTIGHETER AB (AMREFA) AND PROGREEN PROPERTIES,
INC. (PROGREEN)


 


It
was agreed on March 15, 2015, to make the following amendment to the agreement signed between the parties on July 19, 2013. The
agreement will though be considered in effect retroactively since January 7, 2015.


 


The
bases of this amendment, is that in lieu of the interest referred to under paragraph 4 in the initial agreement, the parties will
future transactions what could best be described as a joint venture for each property transaction according to the following:


 


a)       ProGreen
identifies a suitable property to purchase.


 


b)       The
property is purchased either by a specific joint venture entity or directly by American Residential GAP LLC. (ARG)


 


c)       AMREFA/ARG
will provide all cost of the purchase as well as for the renovation/upgrade/maintenance.


 


d)       If
the property is designated as a rental property, a tenant will be identified and the property will be rented. A valuation of the
property will be established based on the net rental return after deduction of property taxes, property management fees, association
fees, if applicable and insurance. The resulting rental return will then be divided with 9.5%, resulting in the valuation of the
property for the purpose profit sharing in the property between ARG and ProGreen. The total cost for the property up to this point,
will then be deducted from the resulting value and the difference will constitute the profit. This resulting profit will be shared
in equal parts between ProGreen and ARG. The part corresponding to ProGreen will then be paid out in cash. EX. Purchase price:
$80,000, renovation cost $30,000, total cost $110,000. Net annual rental return as per above, $14,000 : 9.5% = $147,000 - $110,000,
net profit $37,000. $18,500 being paid to ProGreen and $18,500 being credited to ARG, resulting in ARG acquiring the property
for a net price of $128,500. This will then in turn result in a net rental return of 10.9% for ARG.


 


e)       If
the property instead is decided to be sold in the open market, the resulting net profit between total cost and net sales price,
will be split equally between the parties and dispersed at the time of sale to both parties.


 





	 	Birmingham
    March 15, 2015	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 	PROGREEN
    PROPERTIES, INC.	 	AMERICAN
    RESIDENTIAL FASTIGHETER AB
	 	 	 	 
	 	/s/
    Jan Telander	 	/s/
    Michael Lindstrom
	 	President	 	President
Exhibit 32.2

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 PharMerica Corporation (the
Corporation) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Culotta, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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, 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 Corporation.

|                                                                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                   
|/S/    MICHAEL J.
CULOTTA Michael J. Culotta
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer February 24, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2462 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2462

To prohibit the use of Federal funds for implementing or administering 
 any provision of the memorandum of understanding reached between the 
        Secretary of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2023

 Mr. Donalds (for himself, Mr. Posey, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. 
Crawford, Mrs. Luna, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Higgins of Louisiana, Mr. Williams 
 of New York, Mr. Nehls, Mr. Tiffany, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, and Ms. 
Greene of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
            the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of Federal funds for implementing or administering 
 any provision of the memorandum of understanding reached between the 
        Secretary of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protect American Energy From China 
Act''.

SEC. 2. NO FEDERAL FUNDS FOR MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN 
              DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.

    Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, no Federal funds 
may be made available to implement or administer any provision of the 
memorandum of understanding reached between the Secretary of Energy and 
the Chinese Academy of Sciences on Cooperation in Nuclear Energy 
Sciences and Technology (signed in December 2011).
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

Order 

December 10, 2010 

138636 

SHERRI MARTIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 138636 

 COA: 280267 

Emmet CC: 05-009021-NH 

DAVID LEDINGHAM, M.D., DAVID 

RYNBRANDT, M.D., ANDRIS KAZMERS, 

M.D., and PETOSKEY SURGEONS, P.C., 

Defendants, 

and 

NORTHERN MICHIGAN HOSPITAL, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On October 6, 2010, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to 

appeal the January 27, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, 

the application is again considered. MCR 7.302(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to 

appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case 

to the Emmet Circuit Court for entry of an order denying the defendant’s motion for 

summary disposition. Because the plaintiff’s expert witness testified at his deposition 

that, if the nurses had timely informed the treating physician of the plaintiff’s 

deteriorating condition, the standard of care would have required the treating physician to 

treat the plaintiff differently than he did, while the treating physician averred in his 

affidavit that he would not have treated the plaintiff any differently than he did even if the 

nurses had timely informed him of the plaintiff’s deteriorating condition, a question of 

material fact exists that must be resolved by a jury. That is, having presented expert 

testimony regarding the treatment that the plaintiff, pursuant to the standard of care, 

should have received in the first 72 hours post-surgery, the treating physician’s averment 

that he would have acted in a manner contrary to this standard of care presents a question 

of fact and an issue of credibility for the jury to resolve. See White v Taylor Distributing 

Co, 482 Mich 136, 141 (2008) (A question of material fact existed for the jury to decide 

because the defendant’s deposition testimony that he “felt great” before he blacked out 

was called into question by the defendant’s treating physicians’ deposition testimony that 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 10, 2010 

1209 

 

2

the “defendant’s condition would have caused ongoing symptoms such as cramps and 

pain.”). We agree with the assertion in Judge GLEICHER’s concurring opinion in Ykimoff 

v W.A. Foote Mem Hosp, 285 Mich App 80, 121, 124 (2009), that the Court of Appeals 

“incorrectly decided Martin,” and that “plaintiff’s expert testimony called into question 

the credibility of the surgeons’ affidavits by asserting that the standard of care applicable 

to the affiants required swifter intervention.”
#### In the Matter of John Glenn Barry Metcalf, Sr., Appellant, v Mary Odums, Respondent.

[828 NYS2d 133]

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Pearl, J.), dated December 15, 2005, which, after a hearing, denied his petition to modify so much of an order of custody of the same court (Grosvenor, J.), dated March 25, 1997, as awarded custody of his two minor children to the maternal grandmother.

Ordered that the appeal from that portion of the order which *866pertains to Jimi Metcalf is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner, the biological father of the subject children, appeals from an order which denied his petition seeking to modify stated portions of a prior order of custody. The Family Court previously had awarded custody of the children to the respondent maternal grandmother. The court issued that prior order based on a finding that extraordinary circumstances existed and that such arrangement was in the best interests of the children *(see generally Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys,*40 NY2d 543 [1976]). That order was affirmed by this Court on October 30, 2000 *(Matter of Odums v Metcalf*276 AD2d 794 [2000]).

During the pendency of this appeal Jimi Metcalf turned 18 years of age. As such he is no longer a minor and the earlier custody order no longer applies to him *(see*Family Ct Act § 119 [c]; § 651; *Matter of Lisnitzer v Lisnitzer,*119 AD2d 576 [1986]).

“[0]nce the preferred status of the birth parent under *Bennett*(40 NY2d 543 [1976]) has been lost by a judicial determination of extraordinary circumstances, the appropriate standard in addressing the possible modification of the prior order is whether there has been a change of circumstances requiring a modification of custody to ensure the best interests of the child” *(Matter of Guinta v Doxtator,*20 AD3d 47, 51 [2005]). The father failed to establish a change in circumstances warranting a change in custody *(see Gonzalez v Gonzalez,*17 AD3d 635 [2005]).

The father’s contention that the Family Court erred in conducting in-camera interviews of the then 15- and 16-year-old children is unpreserved for appellate review *(see Matter of Amanda R.,*215 AD2d 220 [1995]) and, in any event, is without merit *(see Matter of Lincoln v Lincoln,*24 NY2d 270, 273-274 [1969]). Florio, J.P., Mastro, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2348 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2348

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for the Inter-
               American Foundation 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 Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for the Inter-
               American Foundation 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 THE INTER-AMERICAN 
              FOUNDATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for the Inter-American 
Foundation for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $22,500,000.
                                 <all>
```
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2275 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 

of Agriculture, Rural Development Programs, Mutual and Self-Help 

Housing Grants 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 Financial Services 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Programs, Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2275 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL 

3 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, MUTUAL AND 

4 SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS FOR FISCAL 

5 YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for US Department of Agriculture, Rural Develop9 ment Programs, Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants 

10 for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $30,000,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
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 State

          - [Delegation of Authority No. 379]

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of State, including Section 1 of the State Department Basic Authorities Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), I hereby delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs the functions vested in the Secretary of State by the following:

1. Sections 204, 208(a), and 209(b) of P.L. 104-43, Title II, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act of 1995 (16 U.S.C. 5603, 5607(a), 5608(b)).

2. Sections 3(a), 4, and 5(a) of P.L. 98-445, the Eastern Pacific Tuna Licensing Act of 1984 (16 U.S.C. 972a(a), 972b, 972c(a)).

3. Sections 503(b), (c)(3)(A), (d)(1)(D), 504, and 509 of P.L. 109-479, Title V, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6902(b), (c)(3)(A), (d)(1)(D), 6903, 6908).

The Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs may, to the extent authorized by law, re-delegate to officers and employees under his or her direction and supervision any of the functions delegated herein.

Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, and the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment may at any time exercise any authority or function delegated by this delegation of authority.

Any act, executive order, regulation, or procedure subject to, or affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive order, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time.

This delegation of authority shall be published in the **Federal Register**.

Dated: December 8, 2014.

John F. Kerry,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2014-30855 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-09-P