alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

October 1, 2014 

# Order

Octo ber 1 , 2014

148 971 ( 5 4 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

, Plaintiff

- Appell ee

,

v

ROBERT TUTTLE

, Defendant

- Appell ant

. SC: 148 971

COA: 312364

Oakland CC: 2012

- 241272

- FH

________________________________________ _ _

/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Cannabis Attorneys of Michigan

for leave to file an amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. The amicus brief submitted on

September 19

, 2014 , is accepted for filing.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk July 26, 2010

d0719 

# Order

July 26, 2010

141022

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141022 COA: 295598 Kalamazoo CC: 08-001572-FC ERIC RAYMOND EPINGER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 28, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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








The
certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Stephen B. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results
of operations of the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





Signed at
the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 19th day of May,
2009.








/s/ Stephen B.
Thompson


Stephen
B. Thompson


Chief
Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.7f

 

Amendment to Employment Agreement

 

THIS AMENDMENT (“Amendment”), dated as of May 13, 2015, to the Employment Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2000, as amended as of July 1, 2002, November 16, 2005, December 31, 2008, July 1, 2009, and as of October 8, 2010 (the “Agreement”), between The Estée Lauder Companies Inc., a Delaware corporation (“the “Company”), and Leonard A. Lauder, a resident of New York, New York (the “Executive”).

 

W I T N E S S E T H:

 

WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company are parties to the Agreement; and

 

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Agreement to reflect the mutually agreed upon changes;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and obligations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

 

1.              Base Salary.   Effective as of July 1, 2015, Section 3(a) of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

 

As compensation for all services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement and as payments for the rights and interests granted the Executive hereunder, the Company shall pay or cause any of its subsidiaries to pay the Executive a base salary (the “Base Salary”) of $1,800,000 which shall be payable in accordance with the regular payroll policies of the Company in effect from time to time.

 

2.              Miscellaneous.

 

a.                          Except as provided above, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same.

 

b.                          Capitalized terms used in this Amendment shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement, except to the extent the term is modified herein.

 

c.                           This Amendment shall be subject to, and governed by, the laws of the State of New York applicable to contracts made and to be performed therein.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

 

	
 
    	
THE ESTÉE LAUDER   COMPANIES INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Michael O’Hare
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Michael O’Hare
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Executive Vice   President —
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Global Human Resources
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Leonard A. Lauder
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:   Leonard A. Lauder
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rashawn Green, Appellant.

[973 NYS2d 273]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Paynter, J.), dated February 28, 2012, which denied his motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46 on his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, the sentence being an indeterminate term of *827imprisonment of 4V2 to 9 years, which was originally imposed, upon his plea of guilty, on July 2, 2007.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance with the resentencing procedure set forth in CPL 440.46.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to be resentenced pursuant to CPL 440.46. Although resentencing is not mandatory, there is a statutory presumption in favor of resentencing *(see*L 2004, ch 738, § 23; CPL 440.46 [3]; *People v Berry,*89 AD3d 954, 955 [2011]; *People v Beasley,*47 AD3d 639, 641 [2008]). Under the circumstances of this case, the factors relied upon by the Supreme Court in denying the motion — the defendant’s criminal history and parole violations — are insufficient to overcome the statutory presumption. The instant offense and many of the defendant’s prior offenses consisted of low-level drug crimes, and none of the defendant’s recent convictions involved violence or weapons *(see People v Berry,*89 AD3d at 956; *People v Concepcion,*85 AD3d 811, 812 [2011]). The defendant had no disciplinary infractions in prison, and had several positive accomplishments *(see People v Nunziata,*87 AD3d 555 [2011]; *People v Hallman,*84 AD3d 1266, 1267 [2011]). While the defendant’s parole violations were a relevant consideration *(see People v Paulin,*17 NY3d 238, 244 [2011]), they were only one factor to consider, and did not mandate, denial of the defendant’s motion *(see People v Berry,*89 AD3d at 956). Under all of the circumstances presented here, “the presumption that the defendant is entitled to benefit from the reforms enacted by the Legislature based upon its judgment that the prior sentencing scheme for drug offenses like that committed by the defendant was excessively harsh, has not been rebutted” *(id; see People v Nunziata,*87 AD3d 555 [2011]; *People v Concepcion,*85 AD3d at 812; *People v Hallman,*84 AD3d at 1267; *People v Beasley,*47 AD3d at 641). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0000429 25-JUL-2013 10:00 AM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eddie J. Cassese, Appellant.

[871 NYS2d 350]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered February 8, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

The County Court did not err in denying suppression of the physical evidence that the police seized when they searched the defendant’s residence pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause *(see People v Corr,*28 AD3d 574, 575 [2006]; *People v Andujar,*187 AD2d 436, 437 [1992]; *People v Sharpe,*157 AD2d 808, 809 [1990]).

However, the County Court erred in adjudicating the defendant a persistent violent felony offender pursuant to Penal Law § 70.08. It is apparent from the face of the record that the County Court lacked the authority to so adjudicate the defendant *(see People v Samms,*95 NY2d 52, 57 [2000]; *People v Ramos,*45 AD3d 702, 703 [2007]). Assuming that the information in the persistent violent felony offender statement dated December 21, 2006 was in a form admissible to discharge the People’s burden of proof *(see*CPL 400.15; *compare People v Faust,*235 AD2d 430, 431 [1997], *with People v Ortiz,*23 AD3d 499, 500 [2005]), the sum of all of the incarceration periods set *640forth in that statement do not amount to a sufficient tolling period so as to qualify the defendant’s two 1976 convictions as predicate violent felony convictions under Penal Law § 70.04 (1) (b) (iv) and (v) *(see People v Santiago,*28 AD3d 590, 590-591 [2006]; *People v Jones,*16 AD3d 701 [2005]; *People v Stanley,*12 AD3d 467 [2004]; *cf. People v Jones,*277 AD2d 329, 330 [2000]; *People v Faust,*235 AD2d 430, 431 [1997]). Furthermore, it is uncontested that the People withdrew their application as to the 1984 conviction for attempted robbery. Under the circumstances, the record does not establish that the defendant meets the definition of a persistent violent felony offender *(see*Penal Law § 70.08).

In light of the foregoing, the defendant’s contention that his sentence was excessive is academic. The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P, Florio, Garni and Chambers, JJ., concur.
IN	THE	UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT	FOR	THE

SOUTHERN	DISTRICT	OF	ALABAMA

SOUTHERN	DIVISION

AUTO-OWNERS	

INSURANCE	COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

GLADYS	MARIE	JACKSON,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL	ACTION	NO.

16-00120-CB-C

DEFAULT	JUDGMENT

This	matter	comes	before	the	Court	on	a	motion	for	default	judgment	(Doc.	

9)	filed	by	Plaintiff	Auto-Owners	Insurance	Company	against	Defendant	Gladys	

Marie	Jackson	in	accordance	with	Fed.	R.	Civ.	P.	55.		Upon	review	of	this	action,	the	

Court	finds	that	Defendant,	having	been	properly	served,	has	failed	to	answer	or	

otherwise	defend	this	action.		Accordingly,	it	is	

ORDERED,	ADJUDGED and	DECREED that	Default	Judgment	be	and	hereby	

is	entered	in	favor	of	Plaintiff	Auto-Insurance	Company	and	that	Plaintiff	recover	

from	defendant	Gladys	Marie	Johnson	the	amount	of	three	hundred	thirty	thousand	

four	hundred	and	no/100ths	($330,400)	dollars.

DONE this	the	5th day	of	July,	2016.

s/Charles	R.	Butler,	Jr.

Senior	United	States	District	Judge

Case 2:16-cv-00120-CB-C Document 13 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:16-cv-00120-CB-C Document 13 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 4.1
 WARRANT TO PURCHASE PREFERRED STOCK
  WARRANT
to purchase
254.44444
Shares of Preferred Stock
 of First Priority Financial Corp.
  Definitions
 Board of Directors
 business day
 Charter
 Company
 Exchange Act




---



##### 



Exercise Price
 Expiration Time
 Issue Date
 Original Warrantholder
 Person
 Preferred Stock
 Purchase Agreement Letter Agreement
 Regulatory Approvals
 SEC
 Securities Act
 Shares
 Warrant
 Number of Shares; Exercise Price Warrantholder Shares
  2




---



##### 



Exercise of Warrant; Term Expiration
Time
  Issuance of Shares; Authorization
 No Rights as Stockholders; Transfer Books
  3




---



##### 



Charges, Taxes and Expenses
 Transfer/Assignment
   Exchange and Registry of Warrant
 Loss, Theft, Destruction or Mutilation of Warrant
 Saturdays, Sundays, Holidays, etc
  4




---



##### 



Rule 144 Information
 Adjustments and Other Rights
  No Impairment
 Governing Law
  5




---



##### 



Binding Effect
 Amendments
 Notices
 Entire Agreement
 [Remainder of page intentionally left blank]
  6




---



##### 



Form of Notice of Exercise
 
    1
  Holder:
 By:Name:Title:
 
 1.
    
    Number of shares to be received by the undersigned upon
exercise of the attached Warrant pursuant to
Section 3(B) thereof.  7




---



##### 



COMPANY: FIRST PRIORITY FINANCIAL CORP.By:
    /s/ David E. SparksName:
    David E. SparksTitle:
    Chairman, President and Chief Executive OfficerAttest:By:
    /s/ Lawrence E. DonatoName:
    Lawrence E. DonatoTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer [Signature Page to Warrant]
  8




---



##### 



SCHEDULE A
 Item 1
 
 Item 2
  Item 3
  Item 4
  Item 5
  Item 6
  Item 7
  Item 8
  
 Item 9




---



#####
CERTIFICATION

            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
             (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF
                          TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)


         Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code),  the
undersigned   officer  of  NT  Media  Corp.  of  California,  Inc.,  a  Delaware
corporation (the  "Company"),  does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly
Report of the  Company on Form  10-QSB for the  quarter  ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-QSB Report") that:

         (1) the 10-QSB 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 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in
all material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  May 15, 2003            NT MEDIA CORP. OF
                                CALIFORNIA, INC.


                                /s/ Chris Mehringer
                                ---------------------------------------------
                                Chris Mehringer
                                President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                                Financial Officer



























                                                                    Exhibit 99.1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000317781
<NAME> ANCHOR PACIFIC UNDERWRITERS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,988,316
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,296,816
<ALLOWANCES>                                    46,308
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,454,743
<PP&E>                                       3,327,600
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,708,949
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,821,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,589,992
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        94,201
<OTHER-SE>                                     266,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,821,941
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,773,030
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,562,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             203,736
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (107,376)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,220
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (113,596)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (113,596)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### Emmanuel Boachie, Appellant, v 57-115 Associates, L.P., Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 629]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered February 8, 2012, which, in this personal injury action arising from plaintiffs alleged fall on a stairway in defendant’s building, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant made a prima facie showing that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the wet condition on the stairway by submitting the testimony of plaintiff, the testimony of the area and maintenance supervisors for the subject building, and the log book entry for the date of the accident, which failed to indicate a hazardous condition in the area of the accident *(see Pfeuffer v New York City Hous. Auth.,*93 AD3d 470, 471 [1st Dept 2012]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The court properly determined that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable under the circumstances *(see generally*
      *604
      *Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth.,*67 NY2d 219, 226 [1986]).

Concur—Gonzalez, EJ., Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Julius R. Ruggiere et al., Appellants, v Michael Bloomberg et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 9, 2009;

decided March 31, 2009

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied [see 11 NY3d 716 (2009)].

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
----

| 1.   | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Company at and for the year ended December 31, 2008. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| March 29,  2010  |   |   |  /s/ Dana C. Gavenda             |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
| Date                            |   |   | Dana C. Gavenda                       |
|                            |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

| March 29,  2010  |   |   | /s/ Kevin D. Maroney                                 |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
| Date                            |   |   | Kevin D. Maroney                                     |
|                            |   |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
Notice of Adjustment between Cheniere Energy, Inc. and Credit Suisee


 Exhibit 10.2 
 Notice of Adjustment 
 This Notice of Adjustment (“Notice of Adjustment”) dated as of
July 26, 2005 is entered into pursuant to the terms of the Confirmation entered into between Credit Suisse First Boston International (“Party A”) and Cheniere Energy, Inc. (“Party B”), through Credit Suisse First
Boston, acting through its New York branch and solely in its capacity as agent for Party A and Party B (the “Agent”) on July 22, 2005 (the “Confirmation”). Capitalized terms used herein without definition shall
have the same meanings given to such terms in the Confirmation. 
 The terms of the Transaction to which this Notice of Adjustment relates
are as follows: 
  

	 	1)	The Number of Options shall be increased from 8,469,780 to 9,175,595, proportional to the exercise of the overallottment option. 

  

	 	2)	The Net Premium shall be increased from USD 69,880,000 to USD 75,703,333, proportional to the exercise of the overallottment option. 

  

	 	3)	The Confirmation, as modified herein, shall continue in full force and effect, and nothing herein contained shall be construed as a waiver or modification of existing rights under
the Confirmation, except as such rights are expressly modified hereby. 

  

	 	4)	This Notice of Adjustment will be governed by and construed in accordance with New York law. 

 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 






 Please confirm that the foregoing correctly sets forth the terms of your agreement by signing and
returning this Notice of Adjustment. 
  

			
	Yours faithfully,
	
	CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON, acting through its New York branch and solely in its capacity as Agent
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John Ryan

	Name:	 	John Ryan
	Title:	 	Assistant Vice President Operations
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Christy Grant

	Name:	 	Christy Grant
	Title:	 	Assistant Vice President Operations


 Confirmed as of the date first written above: 
  

			
	CHENIERE ENERGY, INC. (Party B)
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Don A. Turkleson

	 Name:
	 	Don A. Turkleson
	 Title:
	 	Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
	
	 CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON INTERNATIONAL (Party A)

	
	 By Its Agent: Credit Suisse First Boston LLC

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/

	 Name:
	 	
	 Title:
	 	
		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Thomas Decker

	 Name:
	 	Thomas Decker
	 Title:
	 	Vice President Operations

  

 2