alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit32.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

 

I, Kenneth R. Posner, President and ChiefExecutive Officer, in connection with the Report on Form 10-Q of Angelo andMaxie’s, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2004, hereby certifyin accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)              The accompanying Report ofAngelo and Maxie’s, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September27, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2)              The information contained insuch Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of Angelo and Maxie’s, Inc.

 

 

/s/KENNETH R. POSNER

Kenneth R. Posner

President and ChiefExecutive Officer

Dated:  November 12, 2004

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Angelo and Maxie’s,Inc. and will be retained by Angelo and Maxie’s, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                           8,839
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,145
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,809
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,620
<PP&E>                                          19,024
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,266
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,804
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           599
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,600
<SALES>                                         13,294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,815
<CGS>                                           29,616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    58
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,238)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (85)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,153)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,153)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.95)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Thomas, Appellant.

Submitted July 19, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

*793Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 905 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 905

                   For the relief of Heilit Martinez.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2005

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Heilit Martinez.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR HEILIT MARTINEZ.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Heilit 
Martinez shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of that Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Heilit Martinez enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Heilit 
Martinez shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of enactment of this 
Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Heilit Martinez, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of birth of 
Heilit Martinez under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
made available to natives of the country of birth of Heilit Martinez 
under section 202(e) of that Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Mobley, Appellant.

[872 NYS2d 158]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered December 8, 2005, 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 identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly permitted the complainant to testify that immediately after the defendant and his companions robbed him at gunpoint, the complainant observed the defendant and his companions rob other passengers in the same subway car. Such testimony established the complainant’s ability to identify the defendant as one of the individuals who robbed him *(see People v Gines,*36 NY2d 932 [1975]; *People v Molineux,*168 NY 264 [1901]; *People v Wilson,*225 AD2d 642 [1996]). Moreover, any prejudice to the defendant was obviated by the court’s limiting instruction immediately after the complainant’s testimony concerning the uncharged crimes *(see People v Allweiss,*48 NY2d 40, 49 [1979]; *People v Leach,*259 AD2d 633 [1999]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the police were justified in temporarily detaining him based on their reasonable suspicion that he was involved in a robbery that had occurred only minutes earlier in close proximity to where he was stopped *(see People v De Bour,*40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]; *People v Hill, 41*AD3d 733 [2007]; *People v Daniels,*304 AD2d 478 [2003]). After the defendant was identified in a showup conducted soon *757after he was stopped, the police had probable cause to arrest him *(see*CPL 140.10 [1] [b]; *People v De Bour,*40 NY2d at 223). Accordingly, the hearing court’s denial of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony should not be disturbed *(see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]).

The defendant’s challenge to the prosecutor’s summation is unpreserved for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]), and his remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P, Rivera, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
exv10w24



 





Exhibit 10.24




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO

INVESTMENT AGREEMENT




     Amendment No. 1 to Investment Agreement, dated effective September 26, 2007 (this
“Amendment No. 1”), by and between Teknik Digital Arts, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
“Company”), and Dutchess Private Equities Fund, Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempted company
(“Investor”). The Company and Investor are sometimes collectively referred to herein as
the “parties.”



     WHEREAS, the parties previously entered into that certain Investment Agreement, dated as of
April 27, 2007 (the “Original Investment Agreement”);



     WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Original Investment Agreement to correct and clarify
certain terms therein;



     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, which shall be considered an
integral part of this Amendment No. 1, the covenants and agreements set forth hereafter, and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Company and the Investor hereby agree as follows:



     1. Section 2(G) is hereby amended by deleting the reference to “seven (7) Trading Days” in
the first sentence of that provision and replacing it with “five (5) Trading Days.”



     2. Section 2(J) is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety as follows:



          (J) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF OWNERSHIP. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Agreement, in no event shall the Investor be required to purchase any Shares pursuant to any put if
that number of Shares, which when added to the sum of the number of shares of Common Stock
beneficially owned (as such term is defined under Section 13(d) of Rule 13d-3 of the 1934 Act), by
the Investor, would exceed 4.99 % of the number of shares of Common Stock outstanding on the
Closing Date, as determined in accordance with Rule 13d-l U) of the 1934 Act.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	DUTCHESS PRIVATE EQUITIES FUND, LTD.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
Douglas H. Leighton	 
	 	 	Douglas H. Leighton, Director 	 
	 
	 	TEKNIK DIGITAL ARTS, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/
John Ward	 
	 	 	John Ward, Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Hill, Appellant.

Submitted August 23, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

*789Motion for assignment of counsel granted and David C. Schopp, Esq., the Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., 237 Main Street, Suite 1602, Buffalo, New York 14203 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CITY OF HARRISBURG,

Respondent

v.

JOSHUA PRINCE, ESQ.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 388 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 20 th day of November, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is GRANTED . The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Does the City of Harrisburg’s creation of a spreadsheet to show the receipt of funds from donors to the “Protect Harrisburg Legal Defense Fund” constitute a “financial record” as defined in 65 P.S. § 67.102?
#### Schindler Elevator Corporation, Appellant, v New York City Housing Authority, Respondent.

[976 NYS2d 377]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J), entered January 9, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As plaintiff does not contest on appeal, it failed to comply with the contractual requirement that a notice of claim be submitted within 20 days after the claim arose. Even under plaintiffs theory that its claim arose when its request for payment was denied by defendant on November 30, 2010, the notice of claim allegedly filed on July 12, 2011 is untimely. The failure to meet this express “condition precedent to commencing an action pursuant to section 23 of the parties’ contract” warrants dismissal of the complaint *(see Everest Gen. Contrs. v New York City Hous. Auth.,*99 AD3d 479, 479 [1st Dept 2012]).

Plaintiff’s argument that the contractual provision which shortened the applicable statute of limitations to one year is ambiguous, although not previously raised, may be reached on appeal since “it poses a question of law that could not have been avoided had it been raised before the [motion] [c]ourt” *(Delgado v New York City Bd. of Educ.,*272 AD2d 207, 207 [1st Dept 2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 768 [2000], *cert denied*532 US 982 [2001]). The provision, although perhaps inartfully drafted, is not ambiguous. Plaintiff’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations, which pursuant to the contract, began to run on June 15, 2011, the date of termination of the contract *(see*CPLR 201). Thus, the statue expired prior to plaintiff’s commencement of this action, more than one year later, on July 28, 2011.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Clark, JJ. [Prior Case History: 38 Misc 3d 1207(A), 2013 NY Slip Op 50018(U).]
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11824]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 16, 2009, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), IMS Global Learning Consortium, 
Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 
CourseSmart, Belmont, CA; and American Public University System, 
Charles Town, WV have been added as parties to this venture. Also, 
CREDTJ Co., Ltd., Chung-Gu, Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA has withdrawn as a 
party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. 
intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283)
    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 12, 
2009. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on March 13, 2009 (74 FR 10967)

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. E9-11824 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 26, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 26, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0252. RICHARD CAFFEE v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this

order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

15M1838
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

July 20, 2011 

p0713 

Order 

 

July 20, 2011 

142397 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142397 

 COA: 293645 

Midland CC: 09-003992-FH 

JOHN HOUSTON CROW, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 16, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
!function(t){"use strict";if("function"==typeof define&&define.amd)define(["jquery"],t);else if("object"==typeof exports)t(require("jquery"));else{if("undefined"==typeof jQuery)throw"jquery-numerator requires jQuery to be loaded first";t(jQuery)}}(function(t){function e(e,s){this.element=e,this.settings=t.extend({},i,s),this._defaults=i,this._name=n,this.init()}var n="numerator",i={easing:"swing",duration:500,delimiter:void 0,rounding:0,toValue:void 0,fromValue:void 0,queue:!1,onStart:function(){},onStep:function(){},onProgress:function(){},onComplete:function(){}};e.prototype={init:function(){this.parseElement(),this.setValue()},parseElement:function(){var e=t.trim(t(this.element).text());this.settings.fromValue=this.settings.fromValue||this.format(e)},setValue:function(){var e=this;t({value:e.settings.fromValue}).animate({value:e.settings.toValue},{duration:parseInt(e.settings.duration,10),easing:e.settings.easing,start:e.settings.onStart,step:function(n,i){t(e.element).text(e.format(n)),e.settings.onStep(n,i)},progress:e.settings.onProgress,complete:e.settings.onComplete})},format:function(t){var e=this;return t=parseInt(this.settings.rounding)<1?parseInt(t,10):parseFloat(t).toFixed(parseInt(this.settings.rounding)),e.settings.delimiter?this.delimit(t):t},delimit:function(t){var e=this;if(t=t.toString(),e.settings.rounding&&parseInt(e.settings.rounding,10)>0){var n=t.substring(t.length-(e.settings.rounding+1),t.length),i=t.substring(0,t.length-(e.settings.rounding+1));return e.addDelimiter(i)+n}return e.addDelimiter(t)},addDelimiter:function(t){return t.toString().replace(/\B(?=(\d{3})+(?!\d))/g,this.settings.delimiter)}},t.fn[n]=function(i){return this.each(function(){t.data(this,"plugin_"+n)&&t.data(this,"plugin_"+n,null),t.data(this,"plugin_"+n,new e(this,i))})}});
#### BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Plaintiff v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, and NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, MEDICAL FACILITIES PLANNING SECTION, Defendants and TOTAL RENAL CARE OF NORTH CAROLINA, LLC and HEALTH SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant-Intervenors

No. 549A06

(Filed 9 March 2007)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 179 N.C. App. 483, 634 S.E.2d 572 (2006), affirming an order entered 16 November 2004 by Judge Henry W. Hight, Jr. in Superior Court, Wake County, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and granting summary judgment for defendants and defendant-intervenors. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 February 2007.

*Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP, by K. Edward Greene, for plaintiff-appellant.*

*Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Amy Y. Bason, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant-appellees.*

*Poyner & Spruill LLP, by Thomas R. West, Pamela A. Scott, and Chad W. Essick, for Total Renal Care of North Carolina, LLC; and Bode, Call & Stroupe, LLP, byJS. Todd Hemphill and Diana E. Ricketts, for Health Systems Management, Inc., defendantintervenor-appellees.*

PER CURIAM.

The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued a semi-annual dialysis report indicating a need for additional dialysis service stations in Wake County. Bio-Medical Applications of North Carolina, Inc. (Bio-Medical) brought an action in Wake County Superior Court challenging the data on which the semi-annual report was based and requesting a declaratory judgment, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions and a writ of mandamus. DHHS and defendant-intervenors moved for dismissal, and a Superior Court judge dismissed the action and granted summary judgment in their favor.

Bio-Medical appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. While the appeal was pending, DHHS issued a Certificate of Need to *230defendant-intervenor Total Renal Care of North Carolina, LLC (Total Renal Care) to construct ten new dialysis service centers in Wake County. Bio-Medical contested the Certificate of Need issuance in an administrative hearing, but the final agency decision upheld the issuance. Bio-Medical did not appeal the agency decision. Thereafter, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Bio-Medical filed an appeal with this Court based on the Court of Appeals’ dissent, as well as a petition for a writ of supersedeas. DHHS and Total Renal Care filed separate motions to dismiss Bio-Medical’s appeal based on mootness.

After hearing oral arguments and carefully reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and all other documents submitted, the Court concludes that Bio-Medical’s claim is moot. Accordingly, Bio-Medical’s appeal is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
**Exhibit 10.22**

**PLAINS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION COMPANY**

**DIRECTOR’S DEFERRAL ELECTION FORM**

**EFFECTIVE YEAR _____**

Director’s Name                                                                                         Social Security #                                                                    

I hereby elect to defer all Restricted Stock Awards to which I may become entitled in _______ for my services as a member of the board of directors (the “Board”) of Plains Exploration & ProductionCompany (the “Company”). 

In lieu of payment or transfer to me of Restricted Stock Awards, an equivalent number of Restricted Stock Units will becredited to an account for me. The Restricted Stock Units credited to my account will become fully vested and non-forfeitable upon my completion of the earlier of (i) one full year of service as a member of the Board commencing on the date ofgrant or (ii) the next annual meeting of the Company’s stockholders. I will forfeit all rights to any unvested Restricted Stock Units should I leave or be removed from the Board for any reason prior to vesting. All vested Restricted StockUnits in my Restricted Stock Unit Account will be distributed to me in the form of Company common stock as soon as administratively feasible (but no later than 60 days) after the date of my complete separation from service as a member of the Board.

I acknowledge that I have received sufficient information to make an informed election and that I have had answered to my satisfaction any questions thatI may have had. I further understand that my choice to defer compensation involves both a financial and tax risk and that neither the Company, nor any of its employees, is providing any assurances of returns, preservation of principle, or specifictax treatment on any amounts deferred. 

This election does not limit in any way the right of the Company or its Stockholders to terminate my board servicein accordance with the Articles and Bylaws of the Company. The Company retains the right to amend or terminate this agreement in whole or in part at any time, but no such amendment or termination shall affect my rights to, or the distribution of,amounts deferred as of the date of such amendment or termination.