alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Counterpart to the Purchase Agreement



 EXHIBIT 10.4 
 Counterpart to the Purchase Agreement 
 Upon consummation of the Merger, the undersigned
hereby agrees to assume and be bound by all of the obligations of Metal Services Merger Sub Corp., a Delaware corporation, under the Purchase Agreement dated January 18, 2007, among Metal Services Merger Sub Corp., Metal Services Holdco LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, as representative for the several Purchasers. For the avoidance of doubt, such obligations shall include, but not be limited to, the obligations enumerated in
Section 8(a) of the Purchase Agreement. The undersigned further agrees that all references to the “Issuer” and the “Company” in the Purchase Agreement shall include the undersigned and the undersigned shall be
bound by all provisions of the Purchase Agreement containing such references. Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this Counterpart to the Purchase Agreement shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Purchase Agreement. 
 [Signature on following page] 







 Dated: January 25, 2007 
  

			
	TUBE CITY IMS CORPORATION
		
	 By
	 	/s/ Thomas E. Lippard
		 	Name: Thomas E. Lippard
		 	Title:   Executive Vice President


 Signature page to the Counterpart to the Purchase Agreement 







 Counterpart to the Purchase Agreement 
 Upon consummation of the Merger, the undersigned hereby agrees to assume and be bound by all of the obligations of a Guarantor under the Purchase
Agreement dated January 18, 2007, among Metal Services Merger Sub Corp., Metal Services Holdco LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, as representative for the several Purchasers. For the avoidance of
doubt, such obligations shall include, but not be limited to, the obligations enumerated in Section 8(a) of the Purchase Agreement. The undersigned further agrees that all references to “Guarantor” and the
“Guarantors” in the Purchase Agreement shall include the undersigned and the undersigned shall be bound by all provisions of the Purchase Agreement containing such references. Capitalized terms used, but not defined, in this
Counterpart to the Purchase Agreement shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Purchase Agreement. 
 [Signatures on following page]








 Dated: January 25, 2007 
  

			
	TUBE CITY, LLC
		
	 By
	 	/s/ Thomas E. Lippard
		 	Name: Thomas E. Lippard
		 	Title:   Executive Vice President


  

			
	INTERNATIONAL MILL SERVICE, INC.
		
	 By
	 	/s/ Leon Z. Heller
		 	Name: Leon Z. Heller
		 	Title:   Senior Vice President


 Signature page to the Counterpart to the Purchase Agreement
##### 



Exhibit 99.2 (EXTENDICARE LOGO) NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 9, 2004  Extendicare Inc. Declares Preferred Share Dividend Payment (TSX: EXE.PR.E) MARKHAM, ONTARIO  Extendicare Inc. (TSX: EXE and EXE.A; NYSE: EXE.A) announced
today that a monthly dividend of $0.063 per share, on the Companys Class II
Preferred Shares, Series 1 (EXE.PR.E) has been declared payable on October 15,
2004 to shareholders of record on September 30, 2004. The floating rate monthly
dividend on the Class II Preferred Shares, Series 1 is based on the prime
interest rate on August 31, 2004. For further information, contact: Extendicare Inc.
Christopher Barnes
Manager, Investor Relations
Telephone: (905) 470-5483
Fax: (905) 470-4003
Visit Extendicares Website @ www.extendicare.com - 30 -
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10 - 15 - 00322 - CR No. 10 - 16 - 00161 - CR JOSHUA DOMINGO LORED O , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
From the 54th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014 - 2310 - C2

O R D E R
In Trial Court Case No. 2014

- 2310
- C2, appellant Joshua Domingo Loredo pled not guilty to two counts of aggravated sexual assault (Count I and Count II) and guilty to assault family violence by occlusion (Count III). A jury found Loredo guilty of all counts and then assessed Loredo’s punishment at 45, 45, and 10 years in prison, respectively, to b e served concurrently. Three judgments were signed, one for each count.Loredo v. State Page 2

Loredo filed one notice of appeal, showing his desire to appeal from “the Judgment and Sentence” rendered against him in Trial Court Case No. 2014

- 2310
- C2. The appeal therefore bears one case number, Court of Appeals No. 10

- 15
- 00322
- CR. Loredo’s appointed appellate counsel initially filed a brief challenging only the judgment and sentence for Count I. We ordered counsel to file either a brief bringing any alleged error or an Anders

- t ype motion to withdraw and a supporting brief as to Counts II and III. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed.2d 493 (1967). We suggested that if counsel filed a motion to withdraw, counsel should also file a motion to
sever as to each of those counts. See Kirven v. State , No. 10
- 14
- 00122
- CR (Tex. App.

— Waco, Oct. 22, 2015, order). Counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting Anders brief as to Counts II and III and has also filed a motion to sever those counts from Co unt I. Counsel’s motion to sever is granted. The appeal of the judgment entered as to Count I will remain docketed as Court of Appeals No. 10

- 15
- 00322
- CR. The appeal of the judgments entered as to Count II and III will be docketed as Court of Appeals No . 10
- 16
- 00161
- CR. Counsel’s motion to withdraw and brief in support of the motion to withdraw will be docketed in this new appellate case number. Counsel has indicated that a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s record has been sent to appellant. According ly, appellant has 30 days from the date of this order to file aLoredo v. State Page 3

response to counsel’s brief in support of counsel’s motion to withdraw as to Counts II and III. Appellant’s response is due, therefore, on June 27, 2016. The proceeding as to appellate case number 10

- 15
- 00322
- CR is ready to be decided.
PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Order issued and filed May 26, 2016
#### State v. White

Case below: 184 N.C. App. - (3 July 2007)

No. 385P07

1. Def’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA06-1387)

2. AG’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal

3. Def’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. _

2. Allowed 10/11/07

3. Denied 10/11/07
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 12(c)

                       PPL MONTANA, LLC AND SUBSIDIARIES

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Millions of Dollars)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                         12 Months Ended
                                                                                                March 31, 2001     December 31, 2000
                                                                                                --------------     -----------------
<S>                                                                                             <C>                <C>
Fixed charges, as defined:
     Interest expense on credit facility.....................................................      $      7            $       16
     Amortization of financing costs.........................................................             2                     3
     Amortization of wholesale energy commitments............................................             9                     7
     Estimated interest component of operating rentals.......................................            11                     6
                                                                                                   --------            ----------

            Total fixed charges..............................................................      $     29            $       32
                                                                                                   ========            ==========

Earnings, as defined:
     Net income..............................................................................      $    157            $       88
                                                                                                   --------            ----------
                                                                                                        157                    88
Add (Deduct):
     Income taxes............................................................................           103                    58
     Total fixed charges as above............................................................            29                    32
                                                                                                   --------            ----------

            Total earnings...................................................................      $    289            $      178
                                                                                                   ========            ==========

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges...........................................................          9.97                  5.56
                                                                                                   ========            ==========
</TABLE>

                                      55
Exhibit 32.1

** **

** **

**Certification of CEO and CFO**

**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-Q of Real Estate Associates Limited III (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John McGrath, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(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 results of operations of the Partnership.

 

 
|   |       /s/John McGrath      |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Name: John McGrath                                  |
|   | Date: August 12, 2011                               |
|   |                                                |
|   |       /s/Stephen B. Waters |
|   | Name: Stephen B. Waters                             |
|   | Date: August 12, 2011                               |

 

 

This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 3.47

                  Amendments to Bylaws of Public Storage, Inc.
                Adopted by the Board of Directors on May 8, 2003



              WHEREAS: The Board of Directors of this corporation considers it
         to be in the best interests of the corporation to decrease the
         authorized number of directors of the corporation from eleven (11) to
         ten (10);

              WHEREAS: The corporation's Bylaws permit the Board of Directors to
         designate the number of directors of the corporation provided that such
         number is within the range of not less than eight (8) or more than
         fifteen (15); and

              WHEREAS: The "Adviser" (as defined in the corporation's Bylaws)
         was, through a series of mergers, merged into the corporation in
         November 1995 and no longer exists as a separate entity.

              NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the second sentence of
         Section 3 of Article IV of the corporation's Bylaws is hereby amended
         to read as follows:

                   "The exact number of directors shall be ten (10) until
              changed within the limits specified above, by a bylaw amending
              this section 3, duly adopted by the board of directors or by the
              shareholders."

              RESOLVED FURTHER: That Section 6 of Article IV of the bylaws of
         this corporation is hereby deleted in its entirety.

                                       1
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofBancTec, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for thequarter ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, J. Coley Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:

 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

 

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 

 
| / S / J. Coley Clark |   |
|----------------------|--------|

 

J. Coley Clark

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

November 18, 2005

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by 18 USC Section 1350 has been provided to the Company and willbe retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 03 35 IN THE MATTER OF: O.K., Respondent and Appellant.
**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including December 22 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 17 2023

11/17/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0335
#### Adam Gochnour et al., Respondents, v Philip T. Qua-remba, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 703]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated October 26, 2007, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Sandra Gochnour-DeBernardo on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and *681the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Sandra Gochnour-DeBernardo on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) is granted.

The defendant met his prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Sandra Gochnour-DeBernardo (hereinafter the plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. While the plaintiffs treating physician indicated, in his affirmation, that he found a limited range of motion in her cervical and lumbar spine when he examined the plaintiff shortly after the accident, he failed to provide any quantified findings to support his assertions *(see Fiorillo v Arriaza,*52 AD3d 465, 466 [2008]; *Duke v Saurelis,*41 AD3d 770, 771 [2007]). Moreover, although the physician stated that he had observed bulging discs in the magnetic resonance imaging films and report of the plaintiffs spine, the mere existence of a bulging disc is not conclusive evidence of a serious injury in the absence of objective evidence of the extent of the alleged physical limitations resulting from the disc injury and its duration *(see Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]; *Sealy v Riteway-1, Inc.,*54 AD3d 1018 [2008]; *Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth.,*16 AD3d 45, 50 [2005]). Finally, in the absence of any competent medical evidence, the plaintiffs self-serving affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a serious injury *(see Duke v Saurelis,*41 AD3d 770 [2007]). Rivera, J.P, Florio, Angiolillo, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 3353(U).]
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS      OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | By:              | /s/ ARTHUR                D. LEVINSON                                                               |   |
|--------|------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:Title:Date: | Arthur                D. Levinson, Ph.D.Chief                Executive OfficerMay                3, 2007 |   |

|   | By:                    | /s/ DAVID                A. EBERSMAN                                                                                                                      |   |
|--------|------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Name:Title: Date: | David                A. EbersmanExecutive                Vice President and    Chief                Financial OfficerMay                3, 2007 |   |

----
##### 



Sun Life Financial declares quarterly
common dividend of 22 cents per share Toronto  October 28, 2004 The Board of Directors of Sun Life Financial
Inc. (NYSE, TSX: SLF) today announced a quarterly shareholder
dividend of 22
cents per common share, payable December 31, 2004 to shareholders of record at
close of business on November 24, 2004. This is the same amount as paid in the
previous quarter. Sun Life Financial has increased its quarterly common dividend by 29 percent
since the beginning of 2004. Sun Life Financial is a leading international financial services organization
providing a diverse range of wealth accumulation and protection products and
services to individuals and corporate customers. Tracing its roots back to
1865, Sun Life Financial and its partners today have operations in key markets
worldwide, including Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong,
the Philippines, Japan, Indonesia, India, China and Bermuda. As of September
30, 2004, the Sun Life Financial group of companies had total assets under
management of CDN$355.4 billion. Sun Life Financial Inc. trades on the Toronto (TSX), New York (NYSE) and
Philippine (PSE) stock exchanges under ticker symbol SLF. Note to Editors: All figures in Canadian dollars. - 30 - Media Relations Contact:
    
    Investor Relations Contact:Nicholas Thomas
    
    Tom ReidDirector, Media and Public Relations
    
    Vice-President, Investor RelationsTel: 416-979-6070
    
    Tel: 416-204-8163nicholas.thomas@sunlife.com
    
    investor.relations@sunlife.com
#### Michael J. Sirface, Respondent, v County of Erie, Appellant.

Submitted February 17, 2009;

decided April 2, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie Bailey, Appellant.

[825 NYS2d 708]

Appeal by the defendant pursuant to CPL 450.10 (5) from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (Galasso, J.), entered October 15, 2003, which, inter alia, denied his postconviction motion pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a) for DNA testing.

*492Ordered that the order is affirmed.

Pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a) (a), the court shall grant a defendant’s application for forensic DNA testing of specified evidence “upon its determination that if a DNA test had been conducted on such evidence, and if the results had been admitted in the trial resulting in the judgment, there exists a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant.” Here, the defendant failed to specify the evidence that he wished to have tested. Moreover, the defendant failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that DNA test results would have resulted in a verdict that was more favorable to him had such test results been admitted into evidence at trial *(see People v Mattocks,*15 AD3d 676, 677 [2005]; *People v Shenouda,*307 AD2d 938 [2003]; *People v Pugh,*288 AD2d 634 [2001]). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for DNA testing.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Adams, J.P, Ritter, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
From: The District Court of the 5th Judicial District. County of Beaverhead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL HAMMOND, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-08-3250 DECISION

On November 6, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years, with an additional three (3) years suspended for the offense of Theft, a felony.

On May 8, 2009, the defendant appeared before the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was informed by the Sentence Review Division that Mr. Olson had filed a Motion for Clarification of Judgment with the Beaverhead County Clerk’s office, which requires a response from Hon. Loren Tucker. To date, there has not been a response to the Motion.

Therefore, it was the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division to continue the hearing to the next available hearing date of August 6,2009, so that the Sentence Review Division can review Judge Tucker’s response prior to the hearing.

Done in open Court this 8th day of May, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.