alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 15.1**






August
      2, 2007








The
      Board of Directors and Stockholders of Genentech, Inc.





We
        are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
        pertaining to the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction Investment Plan, the 2004
        Equity
        Incentive Plan, the 1999 Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock Option/Stock Incentive
        Plan,
        the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, and
        the
        1991 Employee Stock Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37072)
        related to the resale of common shares deliverable upon the exchange of Liquid
        Yield Option Notes, and in the related Prospectuses, as applicable, contained
        in
        such Registration Statements of our report dated July 20, 2007 (except for
        Note
        7, as to which the date is August 2, 2007), relating to the unaudited condensed
        consolidated interim financial statements of Genentech, Inc. that are included
        in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
        2007.


Very
                truly yours,/s/ Ernst
                & Young LLP





Palo
      Alto, California
#### In the Matter of Salvatore Cristiano, Doing Business as L & S Tailor, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted July 20, 2009;

decided September 22, 2009

Reported below, 62 AD3d 1219.

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that the nonfinal order sought to be reviewed on appeal does not necessarily affect the Appellate Division order affirming the final order, as required by CPLR 5601 (d), and thus cannot provide a constitutional predicate for the appeal. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
#### Jo-Ann Sherman, Appellant, v Mary Torres et al., Respondents.

[825 NYS2d 253]

*437In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Horowitz, J.), dated March 10, 2005, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action sounding in strict liability, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In May 2003, while visiting the home of the defendants, then 10-year-old Ryan Sherman sustained injuries after being bitten by the defendants’ dog.

Where a pet owner knows, or should know, of his or her dog’s vicious propensities, he or she is strictly liable “for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities” *(Collier v Zambito,*1 NY3d 444, 448 [2004]; *see Bard v Jahnke,*6 NY3d 592 [2006]). “Knowledge of vicious propensities may of course be established by proof of prior acts of a similar kind of which the owner had notice” (1 NY3d at 446). Similarly, an attack that is severe and unprovoked is an indicia of vicious propensities (see *Moriano v Schmidt,*133 AD2d 72 [1987]).

The defendants satisfied their prima facie burden of demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact (see *Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]) regarding the defendants’ prior knowledge of the dog’s alleged vicious propensities, and thus, whether the defendants could be held liable in strict liability for the infant plaintiff’s injuries (see *Bard v Jahnke, supra; Francis v Curley Family Ltd. Partnership,*33 AD3d 852 [2006]; *cf. Longstreet v Peltz,*33 AD3d 673 [2006]).

However, as the plaintiffs cannot recover on their first and third causes of action sounding in common-law negligence (see *Bard v Jahnke, supra*at 599; *Morse v Colombo,*31 AD3d 916 [2006]), those causes of action were properly dismissed. Krausman, J.E, Mastro, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the Company) for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin McIntosh, Senior 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.



By:

/S/ KEVIN MCINTOSHKevin McIntoshSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer




Dated: May 13, 2005
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2921

___________

Larry L. Christiansen, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

* 

Harold W. Clarke, Director Nebraska * Appeal from the United States

Department of Correctional Services; * District Court for the

Karen Shortridge, Assistant Director * District of Nebraska.

Adult Institutions, Nebraska *

Department of Correctional Services; * [UNPUBLISHED]

John Dahm, Warden, Omaha *

Correctional Center; Linda Leonard, *

J-1 Unit Manager, Omaha *

Correctional Center; Kris Buscher, *

Case Worker, Unit J-1, Omaha *

Correctional Center, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: July 30, 1998

 Filed: August 5, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Nebraska.

-2-

Larry L. Christiansen appeals the district court&s order granting defendant prison 1

officials summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. As relevant to this appeal,

Christiansen claimed defendants transferred him from the Omaha Correctional Center

(OCC) to the Hastings Correctional Center (HCC), both minimum security facilities,

in retaliation for his refusal to participate in mental health programming for sex

offenders, despite his right under a prison regulation to refuse such treatment.

Defendants offered evidence in support of summary judgment establishing that

Christiansen was transferred pursuant to a policy designed to make needed space

available at OCC for inmates who wished to participate in certain programming, and

to utilize open space at HCC, where no such programming was available. Christiansen

did not rebut defendants& evidence establishing that his transfer was motivated by

rational, legitimate penological reasons. See Sisneros v. Nix, 95 F.3d 749, 752 (8th

Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
CERTIFICATIONS










I, Tammy
Spriggs, certify that:






1. I have
reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be
filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of SACO I
Trust 2007-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);






2. Based
on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is
included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;






4. I am
responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on
my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer
compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB,
and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have
fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements; and






5. All of
the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in
this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules
13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
10-K.






In giving
the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me
by the following unaffiliated parties: EMC Mortgage Corporation, as servicer;
LandAmerica Tax and Flood Services, Inc., as vendor; American Security Insurance
Company, TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (formerly, “Safeco Financial
Institution Solutions, Inc”) and Standard Guaranty Insurance Company (all
affiliates of Assurant Inc.), and FIS Tax Services each as vendor; GMAC
Mortgage, LLC, as servicer; and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as
custodian.






Date:
March 28, 2008






LaSalle
Bank National Association, as Master Servicer











/s/ Tammy
Spriggs


Tammy
Spriggs


First
Vice President
#### Raymond Young, Appellant, v Joseph Quatela et al., Respondents.

[963 NYS2d 267]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered October 21, 2011, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*736Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice. The defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Friends of Animals v Associated, Fur Mfrs.,*46 NY2d 1065, 1068 [1979]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). As the plaintiff correctly concedes, nonpecuniary damages may not be recovered in an action alleging legal malpractice *(see Dombrowski v Bulson,*19 NY3d 347, 349 [2012]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained any pecuniary damages, as the pecuniary losses described in the complaint were incurred by the plaintiffs father, who is not a party to the action *(see Radcliffe v Hofstra Univ.,*200 AD2d 562 [1994]). The plaintiffs professed intention to repay his father for the expenses incurred on the plaintiffs behalf amount to a moral obligation, which does not support a viable claim for damages *(see Coyne v Campbell,*11 NY2d 372, 375 [1962]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

Motion by the respondents on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 21, 2011, to strike stated portions of the record and the appellant’s brief on the ground that they contain or refer to matter dehors the record, or for this Court to consider a surreply affirmation dated September 28, 2011, attached as an exhibit to the motion papers. By decision and order of this Court dated July 2, 2012, the motion was held in abeyance, and was referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branch of the motion which was to strike stated portions of the record and the appellant’s brief is granted, the motion is otherwise denied, and pages 1379 through 1383 of the record on appeal and the references thereto in the appellant’s brief are stricken, and have not been considered on the appeal.

Skelos, J.E, Leventhal, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ali Abdul-Azez SOFYAN, Appellant.

No. 05-3448.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 18, 2006.

Filed: Oct. 24, 2006.

Sara Elizabeth Fullerton, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Appellee.

Ali Abdul-Azez Sofyan, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.

Michael T. Levy, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ali Abdul-Azez Sofyan appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after granting the government’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion to reduce Sofyan’s sentence for his substantial assistance. On appeal, Sofyan’s counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which counsel makes reference to the extent of the reduction in Sofyan’s sentence. We have no jurisdiction, however, to review the extent of the district court’s Rule 35(b) sentencing departure, *see United States v. Coppedge,*135 F.3d 598, 599 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam), and upon our independent review under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, and we grant defense counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
Exhibit 10.83


 





AMENDMENT
NO. 1 


TO
TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS INC. WARRANT NO. 2015-15


 


This
Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. Warrant No. 2015-15 (the “Warrant”)
is made and entered as of this 14th day of August, 2015 (the “Effective Date”) by and among TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED
HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and LITTLE HARBOR, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company
(the “Holder”).


 


WHEREAS,
the Company issued the Warrant to the Holder on June 2, 2015; and


 


WHEREAS,
Company and Holder wish to amend the terms of the Warrant as set forth herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the sufficiency of which are hereby expressly acknowledged, the parties hereto
agree as follows:


 


1.       Section
3.3.3 of the Warrant is hereby deleted in its entirety.


 


2.       Section
5.3 of the Warrant is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


 


“Amendments
and Waivers. Any provision of this Warrant may be amended or waived, but only pursuant to a written agreement signed by the
Company and the Holder.”


 


3.       Schedule
3.3.3 of the Warrant is hereby deleted in its entirety.


 


4.       Except
as expressly modified by this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Warrant shall remain in full force and effect.


 


5.       This
Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall be deemed
to be one and the same instrument. A signed, including electronically signed, copy of this Amendment delivered by facsimile, email
(for example in a .pdf, .tif or .jpeg format), or other means or electronic transmission shall be deemed to be legally binding
upon the party so delivering such signature and of the same legal force and effect as delivery of an original signature upon this
Amendment.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date written above.


 


 





	LITTLE HARBOR, LLC	TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED
	 	HOLDINGS, INC.
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ Mark Bugge	 	/s/ Thomas
    Tolworthy	 
	By: 	Mark Bugge	 	By:	Thomas Tolworthy	 
	Title:	Secretary	 	Title:	CEO
Exhibit
      4.6

    


    SECOND
      AMENDED ADVISORY SERVICES AGREEMENT

    


    This
      Second Amended Advisory Services Agreement (the “Second
      Amendment”),
      is
      effective as of May 18, 2007, between James B. Panther, II (the “Consultant”),
      and
      VoIP, Inc. (the “Company).

    


    WHEREAS,
      on
      May 9,
      2007, the Consultant and the Company entered into an Advisory Services Agreement
      (the “Services
      Agreement”),
      and
      on May 14, 2007 these parties entered into a First Amended Advisory Services
      Agreement; and

    


    WHEREAS,
      the
      Consultant and the Company wish to further amend certain sections of the
      Services Agreement; and

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE,
      in
      consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Second Amendment, and
      for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
      acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:

    


    
      	
              1.

            	
              It
                is agreed that Sections 3(d), 3(e), 4(e), and the related Exhibits
                A and C
                of the Services Agreement shall be
                eliminated.

            


    

    


    
      	
              2.

            	
              It
                is further agreed that the Consultant will not engage in capital
                raising
                or stock promotion activities on behalf of the Company during the
                term of
                the Services Agreement, as amended.

            


    

    


    
      	
              3.

            	
              It
                is further acknowledged that the Consultant is an “accredited investor”
                (as defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D), and such Consultant has
                such
                experience in business and financial matters that he is capable of
                evaluating the merits and risks of an investment in the Company’s
                securities as provide for in the Services Agreement (the “Securities”), as
                amended. Such Consultant is not required to be registered as a
                broker-dealer under Section 15 of the Exchange Act and such Purchaser
                is
                not a broker-dealer. The Consultant acknowledges that an investment
                in the
                Securities is speculative and involves a high degree of
                risk.

            


    

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amended Advisory Services Agreement has been
      executed by the parties first listed above on as of May 18, 2007.

     

    
      	CONSULTANT:	 	 	COMPANY:
	 	 	 	 
	JAMES B. PANTHER, II	 	 	VOIP, INC.
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ James B. Panther, II	 	 	/s/
              Anthony Cataldo
	
              
James
              B. Panther, II	 	 	
              
By:
              Anthony Cataldo
	
            	 	 	
              Its:
                Chief Executive Officer
ELECTRONIC RECORD PD-0842-15

COA # 05-13-00752-CR OFFENSE: 2.02

George Contreras v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Dallas

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 282nd Judicial District Court

DATE: 06/08/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: F-1231118-S

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

George Contreras v. The State of

STYLE: Texas /

watftN7T5

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: ///oj/^y

JUDGE: f.lA C^AAUifPetition

CCA#: PD-0842-15

CCA Disposition: ^rr3ml$

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:.

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:.

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2252 

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

of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Extension 

Activities 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 Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food 

and Agriculture, Extension Activities 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, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2252 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, NA3 TIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRI4 CULTURE, EXTENSION ACTIVITIES FOR FIS5 CAL 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, National Institute 

9 of Food and Agriculture, Extension Activities for fiscal 

10 year 2024 may not exceed $505,692,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Angel Curras, Appellant.

[962 NYS2d 914]

—Appeal by the defendant from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), imposed February 16, 2011, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of the right to appeal is invalid because the Supreme Court, in explaining the right to appeal, “lump[ed]” it with the rights automatically surrendered by entry of a plea of guilty *(People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]). Further, the executed waiver form did not cure the error because even though that form explained that the right to *974appeal was indeed separate from other enumerated rights, the court failed to ensure that the defendant had read it and was aware of its contents *(see People v Elmer,*19 NY3d 501, 510 [2012]; *People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 262 [2011]; *People v Alston,*101 AD3d 1672 1673 [2012]).

However, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, *P.J.,*Angiolillo, Balkin and Hall, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Wolfe, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 862]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered on or about May 25, 2011, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *{see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice.

Concur— Acosta, J.E, Moskowitz, Renwick, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
#### 546-552 West 146th Street LLC et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiff, v Rachel L. Arfa et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted March 23, 2009;

decided May 7, 2009

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the denial of appellants’ motion for leave to amend the complaint, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.