alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



MATERIAL CHANGE REPORT Pursuant to Section 85(1) of theSecurities Act(British Columbia)
Section 146(1) of theSecurities Act(Alberta)
Section 84(1) of theSecurities Act(Saskatchewan)
Section 75(2) of theSecurities Act(Ontario)
Section 73 of theSecurities Act(Quebec)
Section 81(2) of theSecurities Act(Nova Scotia)
Section 76(2) of theSecurities Act(Newfoundland)  1.
    
    Reporting IssuerNexfor Inc.
Suite 500
1 Toronto Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5C 2W42.
    
    Date of Material ChangeJune 30, 20043.
    
    Press ReleaseThe press release reporting the material change was issued by Nexfor
Inc. on June 30, 2004 in Canada through the Canadian Timely
Disclosure Network of Canada NewsWire.4.
    
    Summary of Material ChangeNexfor Inc. completed the distribution of Fraser Papers Inc. to its
shareholders, having received final court and other approvals.5.
    
    Full Description of Material ChangeRefer to the press release of Nexfor Inc. dated June 30, 2004 which
is attached to this report and being filed herewith.6.
    
    Reliance on Section 75(3) of the ActNot Applicable




---



##### 



- 2 -  7.
    
    Omitted InformationNot applicable.8.
    
    Senior OfficersJohn Tremayne
Executive Vice-President
and Chief Financial Officer
416-643-88509.
    
    Statement of Senior OfficerThe foregoing accurately discloses the material change referred to
herein. SIGNEDthis 1st day of July, 2004 at Toronto, Ontario. NEXFOR INC.
Per: John Tremayne
        ____________________________
  
        John Tremayne 
        Executive Vice-President
        and Chief Financial Officer




---



##### 



NEWS RELEASE
    
    (NEXFOR LOGO)
 9:30 a.m. EDT NEXFOR COMPLETES DISTRIBUTION OF FRASER PAPERS INC. TORONTO, ON (JUNE 30, 2004):Nexfor Inc. today completed the distribution of
Fraser Papers Inc. to its shareholders, having received final court and other
approvals. Concurrent with this distribution, Nexfor was renamed Norbord Inc. As of today, one common share of Nexfor will be equal to one common share of
Norbord Inc., and 1/5 of a common share of Fraser Papers Inc. Shares in Nexfor will cease trading after markets close on July 2, 2004.
Common shares of
Norbord Inc. and Fraser Papers Inc. have commenced trading on an if, as and
when issued basis News Release under the symbols NBD and FPS on the Toronto
Stock Exchange and will begin trading on a regular settlement basis on July 5,
2004. Nexfor common share certificates will represent common shares in Norbord and no
new certificates will be issued. Nexfor common shareholders should retain
their certificates in connection with the arrangement. Certificates representing Fraser Papers common shares, together with cash
payment for any fractional share of Fraser Papers, will be mailed to eligible
registered common shareholders on or around July 14, 2004. - 30 - For more information:
Charles Gordon
Vice President, Corporate Affairs
(416) 643-8836
gordonc@nexfor.com
663 A.2d 1350

#### FRANCES J. CURCIO v. BOARD OF REVIEW.

June 9, 1995.

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on a claim of an appeal as of right based on *Rule*2:2-l(a)(l), and the Court having reviewed the submissions of the parties, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for failure to state a substantial constitutional question. See *Tidewater Oil Co. v. Mayor and Council of Carteret,*44 *N.J.*338, 341-342, 209 A.2d 105 (1965); *Piscataway Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Piscataway,*73 *N.J.*546, 549, 376 A.2d 527 (1977).
[904 NE2d 832, 876 NYS2d 696]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dwight Furet, Also Known as Ira Morsby, Appellant.

Decided February 19, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Center for Appellate Litigation,*New York City *(William A. Loeb*of counsel), for appellant.

*Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney,*New York City *(Dana Poole*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

 On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order af*741firmed. The mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee and DNA databank fee need not be pronounced by the court at sentencing *(see People v Guerrero,*12 NY3d 45 [2009] [decided today]). The lower courts’ determinations regarding reasonable suspicion and probable cause, which are mixed questions of law and fact, have support in the record and are thus beyond our further review.

Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.
From: The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. CHARLES GLENN SMITH, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-07-578C DECISION

On July 18, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to eighty (80) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Deliberate Homicide, a felony.

On February 12,2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was represented by Tara Fugina.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or *13increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 12th day of February, 2009.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2009.

Alt. Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Alt. Member, Hon. Kurt Krueger.
#### Thomas C. Wyckoff et al., Appellants, v Searle Holdings Inc. et al., Respondents, et al., Nominal Defendants.

[975 NYS2d 393]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered May 16, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion dismissing the second through fifteenth causes of action, and denied plaintiffs’ motion for advancement of legal fees and expenses, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that plaintiff is not entitled to a rescission of the settlement agreement, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In the course of a prior litigation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement obliging defendants to pay $160,000, in monthly installments of $5,000, to plaintiffs, with plaintiffs agreeing to transfer to defendants certain equity interests in defendants’ entities, and the parties agreeing to mutually release each other with respect to any obligations and claims up to the date of agreement. After defendants paid only $55,000, plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit, seeking to rescind the settlement agreement and revive their original claims.

The motion court properly determined that plaintiffs are not

*547entitled to rescission of the settlement agreement. It correctly found that the agreement was not intended to be an executory accord, but a substitute agreement *(see Goldbard v Empire State Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*5 AD2d 230, 233 [1st Dept 1958]), that money damages are an adequate remedy, and that restoration of the status quo is impracticable *(see Rudman v Cowles Communications,*30 NY2d 1, 13 [1972]; *Sokolow, Dunaud, Mercadier & Carreras v Lacker,*299 AD2d 64, 71 [1st Dept 2002]).

The court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion for an advancement of legal fees and indemnification since there is no basis for such claims given the releases in the settlement agreement, which, as discussed above, remain in effect, and which extinguished any such preexisting obligations. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Renwick, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
#### United States *v.*Starnes.

*(District Court, D. South Carolina.*

February 7, 1889.)

1. Internal Revenue Laws—Offenses—Retail Liquor Dealer—Medicinal Preparations.

One who sells a medicinal preparation, knowing that it contains an intoxicating quality, to be used as a beverage, or with the knowledge that it was purchased to be used as a beverage, is a retail liquor dealer, within the moaning of the United States statutes ¿providing for the punishment of persons carrying on the business of retail liquor dealers without payment of the special tax.

2. Same.

Where the dealer, after having sold such preparation to a customer, who, in his presence, or with his knowledge, used it as a beverage, continues to sell it to the customer, the jury may find him guilty of such offense,

8. Same.

So, also, if the preparation is but a disguised form of spirituous liquors, intended for uso as a beverage.

Indictment for Carrying on the Business of a Retail Liquor Dealer Without Having Paid the Special Tax.

*L. F. Yonmans,*U. S. Dist. Atty.

*W. J. Cherry*and *I. B. Bell,*for defendant.

Simonton, J.,

*(charging jury.)*The defendant, a merchant of Lancaster, is indicted for carrying on the business of a retail liquor dealer without having paid the special tax. He sold by the bottle a compound known as “Burton’s Bitters,” not having paid the special tax as a retail liquor dealer. The jury, from the evidence, must *666answer these questions: Burton’s Bitters, are they a genuine medicine, designed solely for medicinal purposes, or were they, as charged by the government, a disguised form of spirituous liquors, intended for use as a beverage? If Burton’s Bitters were intended as a medicine, did they contain enough alcoholic material to give.an intoxicating quality ? Did the defendant sell them as a medicine, for medicinal purposes, and none other? Did he sell.them as .a beverage, or did he know that ■they were purchased from him to be used as a beverage? Were they used by purchasers in his presence, and with his knowledge, as a beverage ; and did he continue to sell them to such purchasers after that knowledge was ácquired? If the bitters are simply an intoxicating drink in disguise, and defendant knew this, you can find him guilty. If the bitters contain an intoxicating quality and are really a medicine, or are intended for medicinal purposes, and defendant, knowing that they could intoxicate, sold them to be used as a beverage, or with the knowledge that they were purchased to be used as a beverage, you maj' find him guilty. If he sold the bitters to any of his customers, and they, in his presence, or with his knowledge, used the bitters as a beverage, and with the knowledge thus acquired he continued to sell to them, you may find him guilty.
---

EXHIBIT 15.1



October 28, 2004

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, and 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 October 5, 2004, except for Note 11, as to which the date is October 28, 2004, relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of Genentech, Inc. that are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our report is not a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by accountants within the meaning of section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.





| |  | Very truly yours,   
| |  | --------------------
| |  | /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Fernando Cristostomo, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 403]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas Iacovetta, J.), entered August 24, 2012, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in determining that substantial justice dictated denial of the motion *(see e.g. People v Gonzalez,*29 AD3d 400 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 867 [2006]). Courts may deny the applications of persons who “have shown by their conduct that they do not deserve relief from their sentences” *(People v Paulin,*17 NY3d 238, 244 [2011]). The resentencing statute “involves a complex balancing of several sets of compelling and in some respects competing concerns” *(People v Sosa,*18 NY3d 436, 442 [2012]), requiring the “exercise of judicial discretion to determine whether relief to an eligible applicant is in the end consonant with the dictates of substantial justice” *(id.*at 443).

The underlying conviction involved a series of undercover sales, made over a period of several months, in which the amounts of drugs sold and the surrounding circumstances indicated that defendant was not a low level seller. Furthermore, defendant committed a very serious violent felony while on work release from his drug conviction, and he had a poor prison disciplinary record. These negative factors far outweighed the positive factors cited by defendant, such as his educational and *434vocational accomplishments while incarcerated, his expressions of remorse for his criminal actions and the support of his family members. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

                I, H. John Berens, anauthorized officer of Washington Mutual Bank (the“Servicer”), do hereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”), pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2007 (as amended, the “Servicing Agreement”) by andbetween the Depositor, the Servicer, LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee, and Christiana Bank & Trust Company Delaware, as Delaware Trustee the following with respect to WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-OA2 for the 2007 fiscal year (the “Relevant Year”):

 

 

1.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the Servicing Agreement has been made under mysupervision.

2.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

Dated as of March 1, 2008.

 

| /s/ H. John BerensName:  H. John Berens Title:    Senior Vice President |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
exv10w2



 





EXHIBIT 10.2




AFFIRMATION OF GUARANTEES




     Reference is hereby made to the Amended and Restated Credit Agreement, dated as of August 31,
2005 (as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time,
the “Credit Agreement”), by and among G&K Services, Inc., G&K Services Canada Inc., the
lenders from time to time party thereto, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Syndication
Agent, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, as Administrative Agent. Each capitalized
term used herein and not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Credit
Agreement.



     Each of the undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of Amendment No. 1 to Amended
and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of May 30 2007. Each of the Material Domestic Subsidiaries
party hereto affirms the terms and conditions of the Amended and Restated Domestic Borrower
Guaranty Agreement (the “Domestic Guaranty”) and each of the Material Canadian Subsidiaries
party hereto affirms the terms and conditions of the Amended and Restated Canadian Subsidiary
Guaranty Agreement (the “Canadian Guaranty”). The Borrower, each Material Domestic
Subsidiary party hereto and each Material Canadian Subsidiary party hereto also affirms the terms
and conditions of all of the other Loan Documents executed by it and acknowledges and agrees that
the Domestic Guaranty, the Canadian Guaranty and all other Loan Documents to which it is a party
remain in full force and effect and are hereby reaffirmed, ratified and confirmed. Each reference
to the “Credit Agreement” set forth in the Domestic Guaranty, the Canadian Guaranty and the other
Loan Documents shall be a reference to the Credit Agreement as the same may from time to time
hereafter be amended, modified, supplemented or restated.



The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.




 









 








Dated: May 30 2007




	 	 	 
	G&K SERVICES, INC	 	
G&K SERVICES, CO.
	By: /s/ Glenn L. Stolt
 

Name:  Glenn L. Stolt 

Title:   Vice President & Treasurer	 	
By: /s/ Glenn L. Stolt
 

Name:  Glenn L. Stolt 

Title:   Vice President & Treasurer
	ALL RENTAL GARMENT CO. OF ROCKFORD, INC	 	
KEEFER LAUNDRY LTD.
	By: /s/ Glenn L. Stolt
 

Name:  Glenn L. Stolt 

Title:   Vice President & Treasurer	 	
By: /s/ Glenn L. Stolt
 

Name:  Glenn L. Stolt 

Title:   Vice President & Treasurer
	G&K SERVICES LUG, LLC	 	
G&K LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
	By: /s/ Glenn L. Stolt
 

Name:  Glenn L. Stolt 

Title:   Vice President & Treasurer	 	
By: /s/ Glenn L. Stolt
 

Name:  Glenn L. Stolt 

Title:   Vice President &
Treasurer
	RENTAL UNIFORM COMPANY, INC	 	
LES SERVICES G&K (QUEBEC) INC.
	By: /s/ Glenn L. Stolt
 

Name:  Glenn L. Stolt 

Title:   Vice President & Treasurer	 	
By: /s/ Glenn L. Stolt
 

Name:  Glenn L. Stolt 

Title:   Vice President & Treasurer
	3075964 NOVA SCOTIA COMPANY	 	 
	By: /s/ Glenn L. Stolt
 

Name:  Glenn L. Stolt 

Title:   Vice President & Treasurer	 	 







2
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABBI LEMOS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF SONOMA; STEVE 

FREITAS; MARCUS HOLTON, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15222 

D.C. No. 4:15-cv-05188-YGR 

Northern District of California, 

Oakland 

ORDER

MURGUIA, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that 

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) 

and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion is vacated. 

Judge Koh did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case. 

FILED

JAN 21 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-Q FOR
PRIMA ENERGY CORPORATION FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      16,387,000
<SECURITIES>                                 2,002,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,916,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (45,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    758,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,863,000
<PP&E>                                      93,851,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (42,861,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,110,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,620,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       133,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  61,197,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,110,000
<SALES>                                      8,727,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,677,000
<CGS>                                        3,084,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,364,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,774,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,590,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,184,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,184,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3630 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3630

   To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize a 
    program relating to the Lake Pontchartrain Basin, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 10, 2006

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize a 
    program relating to the Lake Pontchartrain Basin, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN BASIN RESTORATION REAUTHORIZATION.

    The first section 121 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1273) (relating to Lake Pontchartrain Basin) is amended in 
subsection (f) by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2011''.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

    The second section 121 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1274) (relating to wet weather watershed pilot projects) is 
redesignated as section 122.
                                 <all>
```