alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 22, 2004

Mr. William O'Loughlin
377 Rector Place
Apt. 3E New York, NY 10280

Bill,

This will formalize our conversations and serve as an offer for you to become
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer for SecureCARE
Technologies, Inc. effective October 1, 2004. The proposal to move ahead on a
plan for you consists of the following:

Position

Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer, reporting to the President
and CEO

Direct Reports

Vice-President, Product and Technology Development, Eugene Fry Director,
Technology Services, Sean Woods Director, Customer Support and Training, Marc
Heymann

Responsibilities

Responsible for all aspects of the Company's products and technology
development, implementation and integration, customer services and support,
including training and the overall operations of SecureCARE Technologies, Inc.

You will also be responsible for working closely and in concert with the Senior
Vice-President, Sales and Marketing and the CFO in accomplishing individual,
department and overall Company objectives

Base Pay
$120,000 annually, payable semi-monthly
<PAGE>

Bonus
Cash and Stock (50/50) payable quarterly based on 2% of revenue growth in excess
of $30,000 per month

Equity Options

300,000 shares of Common Stock of SecureCARE Technologies, Inc. at the option
price of $1.00 per share, exercisable quarterly on a pro-rata basis with a
24-month vesting term. The grant date of these options is October 1, 2004.

Business and Travel Expenses

All pre-approved business and travel related expenses directly associated with
the execution of your responsibilities will be reimbursed by the company. Neil
Burley, CFO will be responsible for such approvals, required documentation and
issuing reimbursements.

Other Points

Our vacation policy is to take it if and as you can. Neil Burley is available to
discuss other company-paid benefits at your convenience.

As a final statement, I would only add that having served in Senior Executive
and CEO positions in the past, my primary measurement has always been on
accomplishment, and in our discussions, that puts us on the same page.

Regards,


/s/ Robert Woodrow
----------------------------------------
Robert Woodrow
President, SecureCARE Technologies, Inc.

cc: Richard Corlin, Chairman and Chief Medical Officer
      Neil Burley, CFO

Accepted:

/s/ William O'Loughlin           09/23/04
-----------------------    ----------------------
William O'Loughlin                 Date
Exhibit 10.4


 


Titan Machinery Inc. Non-Employee Director
Compensation Plan


 


Each non-employee director of Titan Machinery Inc. shall receive:


 


•                  an annual
retainer of $12,000, payable quarterly;


•                  an annual grant
of options to purchase a number of shares of common stock equal to $12,000,
based upon the fair market value of the common stock on the date of grant,
granted at the time of the annual meeting of stockholders; and


•                  reimbursement of
reasonable expenses incurred in connection with their services as directors.
Exhibit 31.1

                           Section 302 Certifications

I, Jim Miller, certify that:

         1.       I have  reviewed this  quarterly  report on form 10-QSB of CNH
                  Holdings Company.

         2.       Based on my knowledge,  this quarterly 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
                  quarterly report.

         3.       Based on my  knowledge,  the financial  statements,  and other
                  financial  information  included  in  this  quarterly  report,
                  fairly   present  in  all  material   respects  the  financial
                  condition,  results  of  operations  and  cash  flows  of  the
                  registrant  as of,  and for,  the  periods  presented  in this
                  quarterly report;

         4.       I am responsible for establishing  and maintaining  disclosure
                  controls  and  procedures  (as defined in  Exchange  Act Rules
                  13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

         a)       Designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures to ensure
                  that  material   information   relating  to  the   registrant,
                  including its consolidated  subsidiaries,  is made known to us
                  by others  within  those  entities,  particularly  during  the
                  period in which this quarterly report is being prepared.

         b)       Evaluated the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure
                  controls and  procedures  as of a date within 90 days prior to
                  the filing  date of this  quarterly  report  (the  "Evaluation
                  Date"); and

         c)       Presented in this quarterly  report our conclusions  about the
                  effectiveness of the disclosure  controls and procedures based
                  on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5.       I have disclosed,  based on our most recent evaluation, to the
                  registrant's  auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
                  board of  directors  (or  persons  performing  the  equivalent
                  functions):

         a)       All  significant  deficiencies  in the design or  operation of
                  internal   controls   which   could   adversely   affect   the
                  registrant's ability to record, process,  summarize and report
                  financial  data  and  have  identified  for  the  registrant's
                  auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         b)       Any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves management
                  or  other  employees  who  have  a  significant  role  in  the
                  registrant's internal controls; and


Date: February 19, 2004

/s/ Jim Miller
Jim Miller
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 15



                     (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Letterhead)
                                (Minneapolis, MN)

August 13, 1999



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated August 3, 1999 on our reviews of the interim
consolidated financial information of Lund International Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 1999 and
1998, and included in the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 1999, is incorporated by reference in the Company's
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 333-46263, 33-64083 and
33-37160).

Yours very truly,



/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP



                                       22
#### Virginia M. Grimm, Respondent, v Carol A. Bailey, Appellant.

[963 NYS2d 277]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Lubell, J.), dated February 15, 2012, which granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to reargue her motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order of the same court dated December 12, 2011, denying the motion, and thereupon granted the motion. *704Ordered that the order dated February 15, 2012, is affirmed, with costs.

A motion for leave to reargue “shall be based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or misapprehended by the court in determining the prior motion, but shall not include any matters of fact not offered on the prior motion” (CPLR 2221 [d] [2]; *see Matter of American Alternative Ins. Corp. v Pelszynski,*85 AD3d 1157, 1158 [2011]). “Motions for reargument are addressed to the sound discretion of the court which decided the prior motion and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some [other] reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision” *(Mudgett v Long Is. R.R.,*81 AD3d 614, 614 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see E.W. Howell Co., Inc. v S.A.F. La Sala Corp.,*36 AD3d 653, 654 [2007]). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting reargument since the plaintiff demonstrated that the Supreme Court mistakenly arrived at its earlier determination denying the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability *(see Mudgett v Long Is. R.R.,*81 AD3d at 614).

Upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. A rear-end collision with a stopped or stopping vehicle establishes a prima facie case of negligence against the operator of the rear vehicle, thereby requiring that operator to rebut the inference of negligence by providing a nonnegligent explanation for the collision *(see Tutrani v County of Suffolk,*10 NY3d 906, 908 [2008]; *Byrne v Calogero,*96 AD3d 704, 705 [2012]). Under the circumstances of this case, in opposition to the plaintiffs prima facie showing of her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, the defendant’s explanation that she applied her brakes but that her vehicle was unable to stop because of icy road conditions was insufficient to rebut the inference of negligence caused by the rear-end collision *(see Plummer v Nourddine,*82 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2011]; *Faul v Reilly,*29 AD3d 626 [2006]; *Kosinski v Sayers,*294 AD2d 407, 408 [2002]; *Sabbagh v Shalom,*289 AD2d 469 [2001]; *Garcia v Hazel,*287 AD2d 481, 482 [2001]; *Shamah v Richmond County Ambulance Serv.,*279 AD2d 564, 565 [2001]; *Guinan v Suhak Lee,*279 AD2d 507 [2001]; *Hurley v Cavitolo,*239 AD2d 559 [1997]).

Mastro, J.E, Rivera, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Robert J. De Vaere, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IDM Pharma, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Dated: November 9, 2007              /s/ Robert J. De Vaere   Robert J. De Vaere   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
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 Quarterly
Report of Wolverine Tube, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Harold M. Karp, Principal Executive Officer of Wolverine
Tube, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Wolverine Tube, Inc. and will be retained by Wolverine Tube, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



/s/ Harold M. KarpHarold M. KarpPrincipal Executive OfficerPresident and Chief Operating OfficerAugust 29, 2008
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 713 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for collegiate housing 

and infrastructure grants. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6, 2005 

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. LUGAR) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for collegiate housing and infrastructure grants. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Collegiate Housing and 

5 Infrastructure Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS PERMITTED TO 

7 MAKE COLLEGIATE HOUSING AND INFRA8 STRUCTURE GRANTS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 501 of the Internal Rev10 enue Code of 1986 (relating to exemption from tax on cor-
2 

•S 713 IS

1 porations, certain trusts, etc.) is amended by redesig2 nating subsection (q) as subsection (r) and by inserting 

3 after subsection (p) the following new subsection: 

4 ‘‘(q) TREATMENT OF ORGANIZATIONS MAKING COL5 LEGIATE HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT

6 GRANTS.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection 

8 (c)(3) and sections 170(c)(2)(B), 2055(a)(2), and 

9 2522(a)(2), an organization shall not fail to be 

10 treated as organized and operated exclusively for 

11 charitable or educational purposes solely because 

12 such organization makes collegiate housing and in13 frastructure grants to an organization described in 

14 subsection (c)(7), so long as, at the time of each 

15 such grant, substantially all of the active members 

16 of the recipient organization are full-time students 

17 at the college or university with which such recipient 

18 organization is associated. 

19 ‘‘(2) HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

20 GRANTS.—For purposes of paragraph (1), collegiate 

21 housing and infrastructure grants are grants to pro22 vide, improve, operate, or maintain collegiate hous23 ing that may involve more than incidental social, 

24 recreational, or private purposes, so long as such 

25 grants are for purposes that would be permissible 
3 

•S 713 IS

1 for a dormitory of the college or university referred 

2 to in paragraph (1). A grant shall not be treated as 

3 a collegiate housing and infrastructure grant for 

4 purposes of paragraph (1) to the extent that such 

5 grant is used to provide physical fitness equipment. 

6 ‘‘(3) GRANTS TO CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS

7 HOLDING TITLE TO PROPERTY, ETC.—For purposes 

8 of this subsection, a collegiate housing and infra9 structure grant to an organization described in sub10 section (c)(2) or (c)(7) holding title to property ex11 clusively for the benefit of an organization described 

12 in subsection (c)(7) shall be considered a grant to 

13 the organization described in subsection (c)(7) for 

14 whose benefit such property is held.’’. 

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

16 this section shall apply to grants made in taxable years 

17 ending after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### Julio BERMUDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.P. YOUNG, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-30142

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 19, 2006.

Julio Bermudez, pro se.

*438Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Julio Bermudez, federal prisoner # 18536-050, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the method used by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for calculating good time credits. Bermudez sought an accelerated release based on his own method of calculation. Prior to filing this appeal, Bermudez was released from the BOP’s custody and deported to Colombia. The issue Bermudez has raised on appeal has thus been rendered moot by his release. *See Bailey v. Southerland,*821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir.1987). The fact that Bermudez seeks monetary damages on appeal does not continue to present a five case or controversy because he did not seek monetary relief before the district court. *See Benavides v. Housing Authority of the City of San Antonio, Tex.,*238 F.3d 667, 670 n. 4 (5th Cir.2001) (refusing to grant relief not requested below); *Harris v. City of Houston,*151 F.3d 186, 190-91 (5th Cir.1998) (rejecting “appellant’s notion that we may fashion relief not requested below in order to keep a suit viable”).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

*

 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.
#### In the Matter of Ontario County Department of Social Services, Respondent, v Marc Winkler, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Submitted July 6, 2010;

decided September 14, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine an action or proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondent,

v.

DEMI ROSE KVETON,

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 36350-3-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

PENNELL, A.C.J. — Demi Kveton appeals various legal financial obligations 

imposed in conjunction with her 2016 judgment and sentence for delivery of 

methamphetamine. We dismiss Ms. Kveton’s appeal as untimely.

FACTS

Ms. Kveton pleaded guilty to one count of delivery of methamphetamine. After 

finding Ms. Kveton suffered a chemical dependency, the trial court imposed a prisonbased drug offender sentencing alternative (DOSA) and several legal financial obligations 

(LFOs). The LFOs included a $200 criminal filing fee, a $100 DNA1 collection fee, and 

statutory interest. The judgment and sentence was entered on October 14, 2016.

 1 Deoxyribonucleic acid.

FILED

DECEMBER 12, 2019

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 36350-3-III

State v. Kveton

2

Ms. Kveton violated the terms of her DOSA. She was arrested and on August 29, 

2018, her community corrections officer filed a notice of violation in the trial court, 

recommending revocation of the DOSA. The court considered the violation report and on 

August 30, 2018, entered an order revoking Ms. Kveton’s DOSA. The order imposed 44 

months’ confinement and stated “[a]ll other terms and conditions of the original Judgment 

and Sentence shall remain in effect.” Clerk’s Papers at 148.

Ms. Kveton filed a notice of appeal on September 28, 2018.

ANALYSIS

Ms. Kveton argues on appeal that because she is indigent, RCW 36.18.020(2)(h) 

and RCW 43.43.7541 prohibit imposition of the $200 criminal filing fee and $100 DNA 

collection fee.

We do not reach the issue because Ms. Kveton’s appeal is untimely. Ms. Kveton’s 

LFOs were imposed on October 14, 2016. They were not re-imposed during the August 

30, 2018 revocation hearing. Instead, they merely remained in effect. The August 2018 

revocation hearing was not a resentencing. See State v. Canfield, 154 Wn.2d 698, 705, 

116 P.3d 391 (2005). It did not result in the issuance of a new judgment and sentence.

Because Ms. Kveton’s LFOs were not imposed or re-imposed at her DOSA 

revocation hearing, the LFOs are not before the court as part of Ms. Kveton’s notice of 
No. 36350-3-III 

State v. Kveton 

appeal. Ms. Kveton had 30 days from her October 14, 2016, sentencing to appeal her 

LFOs. RAP 5.2(a)(l). Since she did not do so, her appeal is untimely and must be 

dismissed.2 

CONCLUSION 

Ms. Kveton's appeal is dismissed as untimely. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in 

the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to 

RCW 2.06.040. 

Q_ .SL,~ 

Pennell, A.C.J. 

WE CONCUR: 

~~- Korsmo, J. 

2 Ms. Kveton also argues RCW 10.82.090(1) bars the State from assessing interest 

on nonrestitution LFOs as of June 7, 2018. Nothing about the revocation order currently 

under appeal suggests the State is in violation of this provision. 

3
#### Pauline Guntlow, Respondent, v Marc Barbera et al., Defendants, and Anthony Ryan et al., Appellants.

Decided November 18, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the order appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
No. 910.

#### A. B. Kirschbaum Co. *v.*Fleming, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Department of Labor.

March 2, 1942.

*Messrs. Wm, Clark Mason*and *Frederick H. Knight*for petitioner. *Solicitor General Fahy*•and *Warner W. Gardner*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted.
Order entered December 1, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01426-CV

IN RE TERRENCE M. GORE, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF12-12707-U

ORDER

Before Justice Francis, Myers and Schenck

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

We DENY relator’s Request for Emergency Injunction Relief. We ORDER relator to bear the 

costs of this original proceeding. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE