alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website (r eleased the week prior to May 29, 2018 

### ) The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES : A - 17 - 692 State v. Hallauer A - 17 - 718 State v. Meister A - 17 - 764 through A - 17 - 768 State v. Harris A - 17 - 788 Fischer v Fischer A - 17 - 861, A - 17 - 862 In re Interest of Haileigh M. & Kendricks G. A - 17 - 1149 State v. Marol The above - listed memorandum opinions c an be viewed online through the appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebra ska.gov: http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/ . Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here: http s ://www.nebraska.gov/ courts/s c cales/ .
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John T. Burns, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Galena Biopharma, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does 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;

Dated: April 29, 2016



/s/ John T. BurnsJohn T. BurnsController and Principal Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4073 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 4073

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 5, 2006

             Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans 
    Affairs located in Farmington, Missouri, as the ``Robert Silvey 
          Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

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

SECTION 1. ROBERT SILVEY DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT 
              CLINIC.

    (a) Designation.--The outpatient clinic of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs located in Farmington, Missouri, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Robert Silvey Department of Veterans Affairs 
Outpatient Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert 
Silvey Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.

            Passed the Senate November 16, 2006.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gerald SALLEY, a/k/a Arthur Jackson, a/k/a G, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 09-6089.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 21, 2009.

Decided: May 28, 2009.

Gerald Salley, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Salley appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Salley,*No. 3:95-cr-00488-JFA-3 (D.S.C. Jan. 5 & Jan. 30, 2009); *see United States v. Dun-phy,*551 F.3d 247 (2009). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Employment Letter - John E. Lusdyk



 Exhibit 10.3 
 [INFRA-METALS LETTERHEAD] 
 Mr. John Lusdyk 
 Infra Metals Co 
 Suite D-100 
 580 Middletown Blvd 
 Langhorne 
 Pennsylvania 19047

 USA 
 PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL 
 23 March 2005 
 Dear John, 
 NOTICE PERIOD 
 Following our recent discussions I am pleased to be able to offer you an improvement to your contractual notice period. If you agree to the variation offered please sign both copies of this letter. You should keep one
copy for your records and give the other copy back to me. On signing this letter these changes will have immediate effect. 
 Your existing notice period is
2 weeks on either side. On reviewing this matter, I believe the notice period should be changed to reflect your position in the Company. Therefore, it is proposed that the period of notice to be given by you to the Company to terminate your
employment shall be 6 months. The period of notice to be given to you by the Company shall be 12 months. 
 This notice period (12 months) will also be
applicable with regard to any change in you salary, benefits (which for the sake of good order are set out in the attached schedule), position (including location) or formula for calculation of your annual incentive payment. 
  

	
	Yours sincerely,
	
	/s/ V H Sher
	 V H Sher
 Chairman
 Infra Metals Inc


 I agree to the change in notice periods, and I understand that all other terms and conditions of employment remain
unchanged. 
  

			
	Signed:	 	/s/ John Lusdyk

 Date: 3/24/05 







 SOUTHERN REGION 
 BONUS FORMULA - JOHN LUSDYK, PRESIDENT 
 PERIOD: 
 (Audited) 
 Mr. John Lusdyk is entitled to a bonus annually which is based on the profits of the
four divisions that comprise the Southern Region. The formula starts with annual audited EBT to which is added the allocated corporate expenses. This result is the bonus basis which is multiplied times 5% to arrive at the fiscal year bonus.

  

															
	 PERIOD:
	  	Final
	  	Mid-Atl.	 	 	Virginia	 	 	Hallandale	 	 	Tampa	 	 	Total
	 EBT
	  			 			 			 			 	
	 Add: Alloc. Corporate Expense
	  			 			 			 			 	
		  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	 Bonus Basis
	  	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	
	 Rate
	  	5.0	%	 	5.0	%	 	5.0	%	 	5.0	%	 	
	 Bonus Amount
	  	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	—  	 	 	—  








 INFRA-METALS CO. 
 Automobile Fringe Benefit 
 John Lusdyk is entitled to an automobile which is leased to the Company. Upon the
termination of the lease, he shall receive a new leased automobile, subject to the approval of the President. A leased automobile is considered part of their overall compensation package. 
 Vacations 
 Effective January 1, 2005, John Lusdyk is entitled to paid vacation as follows:

 John
Lusdyk                    4 Weeks 
 After 10 years
plus one day per year with a 5 week cap.
AMENDMENT


EXHIBIT 4.4

 




AMENDMENT

TO THE

PROMISSORY NOTE DATED MARCH 2, 2005

TO HARMEL S. RAYAT







AMENDMENT dated January 18, 2006 (the “Note Amendment”) to that certain Promissory Note dated March 2, 2005 (the “Note”), issued by Hepalife Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”), to Harmel S. Rayat, in the original principal amount of Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($700,000), the original executed copy of which is attached hereto.




1.

Amendment to Note.  In accordance with the terms and provisions of Section 4(a) of the Note, the Note is hereby amended as follows:




(a)  By deleting section 1 thereof and substituting the following in lieu thereof:




1.  Payment.  (a)  The Outstanding Principal balance of the Note, together with accrued and unpaid interest thereon shall be paid by the Company to the Holder, at the address as provided to the Company by the Holder in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America upon the earlier to occur of:




(1)  The occurrence of an Event of Default (as defined in Section 2 of the Note), which occurrence shall be deemed written demand by the holder for payment of the note; or




(2)  The Company’s receipt of written demand for payment from the Holder.




(b)  Interest shall accrue with respect to the unpaid principal amount of the loan from the date of this Note until such principal is paid at a rate of eight and one-half percent (8.50%) per annum (computed on the basis of a 365-day year).




(c)  Company shall have the right at any time and without penalty to prepay, in whole or in part, the principal outstanding and/or the interest accrued hereunder.”




2.

Balance of provisions of Note to Remain Unchanged and in Force and Effect.  Except as amended by Section 1 of this Note Amendment, all of the other terms and provisions of the Note remain unchanged and in full force and effect.




3.

Binding Effect; Assigns.  This Note Amendment and all of the provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Holder, his successors and assigns.




4.

Governing Law.  This Note Amendment and the validity, interpretation and performance of the terms and provisions hereof shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of Florida, without regard to the principles of conflicts of laws.











5.

Headings.  The headings used in this Note Amendment are for convenience of  reference only and shall not be construed to affect the meaning or construction of any of the provisions hereof.




6.

Entire Amendment.  This Note Amendment constitutes the entire amendment of the Note, and supersedes all prior agreements and undertakings, both written and oral, between the Company and the Holder with respect to such specific subject matter.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Note Amendment to be executed this 18th day of January, 2006.







Hepalife Technologies, Inc.




By

/s/ Arian Soheili

Name:

Arian Soheili

Title:

Secretary and Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,535
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,250
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,520
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,322
<PP&E>                                         225,360
<DEPRECIATION>                                 132,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 231,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,165
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           326
<OTHER-SE>                                    (71,126)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   231,924
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               139,661
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,731
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,931
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,409
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,999
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,664)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,663
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8

                     FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this "Amendment") is entered
into on November 9th, 2004, by and between Mission Resources Corporation, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Marshall L. Munsell (the "Executive").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

      WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive are parties to an Employment
Agreement dated as of November 4, 2003 (the "Agreement"), pursuant to which the
Company employed the Executive as its Senior Vice President - Land and Land
Administration.

      WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Agreement.

      NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants and
obligations herein set forth and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt, sufficiency and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereto hereby agree as follows, intending to be legally bound:

      1.    Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have
the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement as defined therein unless
otherwise defined herein.

      2.    The second sentence of Section 5(g) of the Agreement is hereby
deleted and the following is substituted in place thereof:

      In the event that the excise tax relating to "parachute payments" under
      Section 280G of the Code applies to the Payment or any other payment by
      the Company to the Executive or other transaction entered into by the
      Executive pursuant to this Agreement or any other agreement, plan,
      instrument or obligation, in whatever form (collectively, the "Other
      Payments"), then the Company shall pay the Executive an additional payment
      in an amount such that, after payment of federal income taxes (but not the
      excise tax) on the Payment or any Other Payment, the Executive receives an
      additional amount equal to the excise tax originally imposed on the
      Payment or any Other Payment.

      3.    Except as amended by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect and is hereby ratified and affirmed. In the event of a
conflict between the terms in this Amendment and the Agreement, the Amendment
shall control.

      4.    This Amendment shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Texas.

      5.    In case of one or more of the provisions contained in this Amendment
for any reason shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any
respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any
other provision of this Amendment, but this
Exhibit 32.1





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 annual report of Veracity Management Global, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Gregory L. Paige, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 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, as amended; and





2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Gregory L. Paige





Gregory L. Paige


Chief Executive Officer




Dated: October 13, 2009





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Veracity Management Global, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In the Matter of David H., Appellant, v Khalima H., Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 32]

*545Order, Family Court, New York County (Douglas E. Hoffman, J.), entered on or about August 27, 2012, which, after a hearing, granted joint legal custody of the subject child to the parties, with primary residential custody to respondent mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A sound and substantial basis in the record supports the determination that it is in the child’s best interests to remain in the custody of respondent mother, who has been the child’s primary care giver for all but two years of his life. The court reached this determination after a full evidentiary hearing at which it heard testimony from, inter alia, both parents and interviewed the child in camera *(see Matter of Ricardo S. v Carron C.,*91 AD3d 556 [1st Dept 2012]).

The evidence established that although both parties provide loving, nurturing homes, the child is doing well in respondent mother’s care and is succeeding academically. Although respondent’s boyfriend engaged in inappropriate corporal punishment when the child was younger, there is no indication of a continuing problem or any countervailing circumstances warranting a change in the custody arrangement *(see Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer,*55 NY2d 89, 95 [1982]). To the extent the child wishes to spend more time with petitioner father, the court expressly stated that petitioner “is to have extensive parenting time” and directed that respondent not relocate with the child absent the father’s consent or permission of the court. Given the “cooperative nature of the parenting relationship” as noted by the Family Court, it is not in the child’s best interests to disturb the current custody arrangement. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Renwick, Freedman and Clark, JJ.
#### State v. Risher

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 865

No. 595P06

Def s Motion to Stay Mandate Pending PDR (COA05-1249)

Denied 11/22/06
#### John M. Peterson et al., Appellants, et al., Plaintiffs, v Martin J. Neville et al., Respondents.

[870 NYS2d 348]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered October 1, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the first and second causes of action seeking an accounting of the partnerships of Neville, Peterson & Williams, and Neville Peterson LLP unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The causes of action seeking an accounting of the partnerships on the basis that defendants (former partners) withdrew excess profits, were properly dismissed as the tax returns of the respective partnerships state that defendants had positive capital account balances. Plaintiffs are bound by the representations that were made in the partnerships’ tax returns *(see Acme Am. Repairs, Inc. v Uretsky,*39 AD3d 675, 677 [2007], *lv dismissed*9 NY3d 979 [2007]; *Naghavi v New York Life Ins. Co.,*260 AD2d 252 [1999]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions, including that the motion court’s application of the doctrine of judicial estoppel in this case violates the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              67
<SECURITIES>                                     4,497
<RECEIVABLES>                                        9
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   159
<PP&E>                                           9,057
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              187
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            28
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,807
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,390
<SALES>                                              3
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,218
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,013
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,368
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,645
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,645
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .169
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .169
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Frederick JARVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50974

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western *587District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

William Frederick Jarvis appeals his sentence following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of 50 kilograms or more of marijuana and for possession with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 952, and 960. He argues that the district court clearly erred in denying him a minor role adjustment to his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Jarvis contends that he was a mere courier who was substantially less culpable than other participants in the offense.

We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and review factual findings for clear error. *See United States v. Villegas,*404 F.3d 355, 359 (5th Cir.2005); *United States v. Villanueva,*408 F.3d 193, 203 & n. 9 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 268, 163 L.Ed.2d 241 (2005). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, a district court may decrease a defendant’s offense level by two levels if the defendant was a minor participant. An adjustment for a minor role applies to a defendant “who is less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” § 3B1.2, comment, (n.5).

The district court did not clearly err in denying Jarvis a minor role adjustment. *See United States v. Atanda,*60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir.1995); *United States v. Buenrostro,*868 F.2d 135, 137-38 (5th Cir.1989); *United States v. Nevarez-Arreola,*885 F.2d 243, 245 (5th Cir.1989). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.