alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Albert G. DRIVER, Administrator of the Estate of Boleslaus Olszewski, Deceased, v. F. A. MITCHELL CO. and E. M. Hanson *&*Co.

Civ. A. No. 32718.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 18, 1964.

As Amended May 25, 1964.

*227Joseph A. Malloy, Jr., of Hamilton, Darmopray & Malloy, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

William J. McKinley, Jr., of Swartz, Campbell & Detweiler, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant F. A. Mitchell Co.

FREEDMAN, District Judge.

This is a Pennsylvania diversity suit for personal injury. The complaint contains two counts against the defendant, F. A. Mitchell Co. One count alleges negligence; the other alleges breach of warranty. Defendant, Mitchell Co., has filed a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 on the warranty count, claiming the absence of privity between plaintiff’s decedent and the defendant.

Despite the arguments of plaintiff’s counsel to the contrary, the conclusion is inescapable that under Pennsylvania law defendant’s warranty did not extend to plaintiff’s decedent, who was an employee of the buyer. The governing rule was recently announced in Hochgertel v. Canada Dry Corp., 409 Pa. 610, 187 A.2d 575 (1963). In the more recent ease of Yentzer v. Taylor Wine Co., 414 Pa., 272, 199 A.2d 463 (1964), the Hochgertel case was formally reaffirmed but was held inapplicable to an employee who personally made the purchase for his employer and therefore was treated as a buyer of the defective goods. The Yentzer case foreshadows perhaps the ultimate decay of the limitation recognized in Hochgertel. But at this time the Pennsylvania rule is clear and I must, of course, act on it, however one may speculate on its future development.

Defendant’s motion, however, encounters a procedural barrier. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a “partial summary judgment” under Rule 56.1 *****Since the elimination of the warranty count will not completely dispose of the case, the appropriate remedy is provided by subsection (d) of Rule 56, which authorizes an order limiting the issues to be tried, by analogy to Rule 16 relating to pretrial orders.2 Professor Moore recommends that this should be called an “interlocutory summary adjudication”. 6 Moore, Federal Practice (1953), § 56.20 [3]. Such an adjudication preliminary to the trial is not a final judgment, and has the virtue that if subsequent developments in this changing area of Pennsylvania law make it appropriate, the conclusion here reached may be reconsidered at the pretrial conference or at the trial.

ORDER

And now, May 18, 1964, count II of the complaint is declared insufficient as a matter of law and the issue of liability for warranty under count II is eliminated from the case.

1

. Coffman v. Federal Laboratories, 171 F.2d 94 (3d Cir. 1948), cert. den. 336 U.S. 913, 69 S.Ct. 603, 93 L.Ed. 1076 (1949); Daniels v. Beryllium Corp., 211 F.Supp. 452, 456 (E.D.Pa.1962); 6 Moore, Federal Practice (1953), § 56.20.

2

. See Coffman v. Federal Laboratories, supra, n. 1; Daniels v. Beryllium Corp., supra, n. 1.
exv10w3



 





Exhibit 10.3




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This Amendment to the Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) between Stewart Enterprises, Inc., a
Louisiana corporation (the “Company”), and Thomas J. Crawford (the “Employee”) dated February 20,
2007 is effective as of May 14, 2007 (the “Amendment Date”).



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee wish to amend the Agreement to provide for a lump-sum
payment of severance benefits following a termination of employment within two years following a
change of control of the Company;



     NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the continued employment of Employee by the
Company and the payment of salary, benefits and other compensation to Employee by the Company, the
parties hereto agree as follows:



     Section 6.4 of the Agreement shall be amended to read in its entirety as follows:




     Section 6.4 If, on or within two years following a Change of Control, the
Company terminates Employee’s employment for reasons other than death, Disability or
Cause or Employee terminates his employment for Good Reason, then, instead of the
payments provided in Section 5.3, Employee shall receive from Company the equivalent
of two times Employee’s Base Salary in effect at the Date of Termination paid in
full on the first regular payroll date that is at least six months after the Date of
Termination.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Employee have caused this Amendment to the Agreement
to be executed and effective on May 14, 2007.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC.

 	 
	Dated:  May 14, 2007 	By:  	/s/ JAMES W. MCFARLAND
 	 
	 	 	James W. McFarland 	 
	 	 	Compensation Committee Chairman 	 
	 
	 	EMPLOYEE:

 	 
	Dated:  May 14, 2007 	/s/ THOMAS J. CRAWFORD
 	 
	 	Thomas J. Crawford
FEBRUARY 2009 CALENDAR

From: The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. ALAN COMBS, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-04-244C DECISION

On September 20, 2005, the defendant was sentenced to the following: Count I: Thirty (30) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Aggravated Burglary, a felony; and Count II: Twenty (20) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Assault with a Weapon, a felony. Counts I and II shall run consecutively.

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 Allison Howard.

Before hearing the application, Eric Olson advised by the Sentence Review Division that he recently spoke with the defendant and the defendant indicated that he wished to continue his sentence review hearing due to the fact that the defendant is still in the process of gathering additional information to present to the Sentence Review Division and is not properly prepared. Mr. Olson informed the Division that he was prepared to represent the defendant. However, in the interest of his client’s wishes, he also agrees that a continuance is necessary.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the application for review of sentence shall be continued to the next available sentence review hearing date in May 2009.

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

DATED this 27th day of February, 2009.

*2Alt. Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Alt. Member, Hon. Kurt Krueger.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3735 

To suspend temporarily the duty on vulcanized rubber felt bottom boots 

for use in waders. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 26, 2006 

Mr. BAUCUS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on vulcanized rubber felt 

bottom boots for use in waders. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FELT BOTTOM BOOTS FOR USE IN FISHING 

4 WADERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.64.05 Vulcanized rubber felt bottom boots for 

actual use in fishing waders (provided for 

in subheading 6405.90.90) ...................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•S 3735 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
|   | · | The                Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)                or                15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                and                    |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | · | The                information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all                material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of                the Company. |

| Date:                August 4, 2005 | /s/ John                F.                Sipics                                   John                F. SipicsPresident                PPL                Electric Utilities Corporation |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Summary of Compensation Arrangement for Certain Executive Officers



 EXHIBIT 10.27(a) 
 MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC. 
 Summary of Compensation Arrangement for Certain Executive Officers

 Exhibit 10.27(b) lists the executives for which this Exhibit 10.27(a) applies. In addition, Exhibit 10.27(b) sets forth the annualized base salary and
target bonus percentage for such named executive officers. Additional employees other than the executives set forth in Exhibit 10.27(b) may have the same or similar compensation as set forth in this Exhibit 10.27(a) and in Exhibit 10.27(b).

 Description of Compensation for Certain Executive Officers 
 Each such executive officer’s compensation package consists of three elements: 
  

	 	•	 	 base compensation, which compensates for the underlying job; 


  

	 	•	 	 variable or bonus compensation, which rewards based on the achievement of financial and individual performance goals; and 


  

	 	•	 	 equity-based incentive compensation, which rewards for Magma’s growth and increased stockholder value. 


 In addition to the above, each such executive officer is eligible to participate in various employee benefit plans, including (without limitation) 401(k)
plans , life, disability, health, accident and other insurance programs, paid vacations, and similar plans or programs, subject in each case to the generally applicable terms and conditions of the applicable plan or program. 
 Each such executive officer’s employment is at-will. 
 Employment, Severance and Change of Control Agreements 
 Magma does not have formal employment or severance agreements with
any of the executive officers set forth in Exhibit 10.27(b) except that Magma has agreed to pay to Mr. Peter S. Teshima a severance amount equal to six months’ of Mr. Teshima’s initial annual base salary (which initial
annual base salary was $200,000.00) if Mr. Teshima’s employment with Magma is involuntarily terminated without Cause. Such executive officers are parties to stock option agreements that provide for acceleration of vesting upon specified
events.
Exhibit32.1

 

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

PURSUANTTO 18 USC. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

** **

In connection withthe report on Form 10-K of Infrastructure Developments Corp., for the annualperiod ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, I, Thomas Morgan, do hereby certify, pursuant to18 USC. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)  This reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  Theinformation contained in this report fairly represents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition of the registrant at the end of the periodcovered by this report and results of operations of the registrant for theperiod covered by this report.

 

 

Date: October 7, 2011

 

 

/s/Thomas Morgan         

ThomasMorgan

Chief ExecutiveOfficer

 

 

This certificationaccompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or afterthe date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrantand will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 37 Referred in House (RFH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 37

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 2005

Referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the 
 Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Armed Services for a period to 
      be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for 2 
                                 years.

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

SECTION 1. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST CANCER 
              RESEARCH.

    Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2007''.

            Passed the Senate September 27, 2005.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Delroy Fleming, Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 21]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira R. Globerman, J.), rendered April 8, 2003, as amended April 20, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, sentencing him to a term of eight years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel. The existing record establishes that trial counsel’s overall performance was prejudicially deficient *(see People v Droz,*39 NY2d 457 [1976]). Counsel demonstrated her lack of basic comprehension of criminal law and procedure through her persistent frivolous conduct at multiple stages of the proceeding, including, among other things, pretrial motion practice, a purported interlocutory appeal, the suppression hearing, requests for jury instructions, posttrial motions and sentencing. Counsel’s woeful lack of knowledge approached the traditional “farce and a mockery of justice” standard *(see People v Tomaselli,*7 NY2d 350, 353-354 [1960]). This case presented an issue of whether defendant was aware of the illicit contents of a package he accepted in a controlled postal delivery. Counsel completely and prejudicially misunderstood and mishandled this issue, and defendant was deprived of a fair trial as a result. We find counsel’s unfamiliarity with the sentencing parameters for defendant’s crime particularly troubling in view of the fact that before trial defendant received a beneficial plea offer of three to nine years. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3842 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3842

  To suspend temporarily the duty on synthetic quartz or fused silica 
                      photomask blank substrates.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 5, 2006

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mrs. Clinton) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on synthetic quartz or fused silica 
                      photomask blank substrates.

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

SECTION 1. SYNTHETIC QUARTZ OR FUSED SILICA PHOTOMASK SUBSTRATES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``      9902.70.60        Synthetic fused silica  Free      No change       No change       On or before 12/
                           (100 percent SIO2)                                                31/2008          ''
                           photomask blank                                                                     .
                           substrates in squares
                           having a surface area
                           of 150 cm2 or more
                           but not over 522 cm2
                           and a thickness of
                           2.2 mm or more but
                           not over 6.45 mm
                           (provided for in
                           subheading
                           7006.00.40)..........

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-64,933]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on January 22, 2009 in response to a petition filed by the Sheet Metal Workers, Local 565 on behalf of workers of Wolf Appliance, a division of Sub Zero Freezer Inc., Fitchburg, Wisconsin.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of April 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of  Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10866 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0342

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JEREMY HOLMQUIST,

Defendant 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 April 15, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 1 2024

04/01/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0342
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arthur Richardson, Appellant.

[870 NYS2d 925

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bangs County *878(Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered October 4, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowing or voluntary because the court failed to elicit from him a waiver of his right to a ruling on his pending motion to suppress evidence is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v LeGrady,*50 AD3d 1059 [2008]; *People v Ramsey,*49 AD3d 565 [2008]; *People v Herdt,*45 AD3d 698 [2007]) and, in any event, is refuted by the record *(see People v Boston,*30 AD3d 211 [2006]; *People v Kenrick,*233 AD2d 528 [1996]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P, Fisher, Florio, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.