alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BERRY v. SPOKANE, PORTLAND & SEATTLE RY. CO.

No. 1048.

District Court, D. Oregon.

Aug. 28, 1942.

William P. Lord and Ben Anderson, both of Portland, Or., for plaintiff.

Manley B. Strayer and Hart, Spencer, McCulloch & Rockwood, all of Portland, Or., for defendant.

YANKWICH, District Judge.

The defendant’s motion for summary judgment heretofore submitted is allowed.

A study of the pre-trial order, of the deposition of the plaintiff, and the exhibits introduced at the pre-trial leads to the conclusion that the relationship of employer and employee did not exist between plaintiff and the defendant. The injuries complained of by the plaintiff were sustained by him while he was in the employ of another whose relation to the defendant was that of an independent contractor. (See defendant’s pre-trial exhibit 6 and paragraphs 3-7 of pre-trial order). In this respect, it is significant to note that the pre-trial order admits that , the written contract was the only basis for the dealings between the plaintiff’s employer and the defendant (see paragraph 4). Under the circumstances, any possible contradiction of its terms would not be permissible and would not create an issue of fact as to the nature of the relationship which existed under it.

The only matter thus presented is the legal effect of the contract, in the light of the admissions in the pre-trial order and the deposition. This is a question of law.

As we take the view that the relationship thus shown is that of independent contractorship, there is no “genuine issue as to any material fact”. Federal Rules *484of Civil Procedure, rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C. A. following section 723c; and see Port of Palm Beach Dist. v. Goethals, 5th Cir., 1939, 104 F.2d 706; Heart of America Lumber Co. v. Belove, 8th Cir., 1940, 111 F.2d 535, 130 A.L.R. 658; C.T.C. Investment Co. v. London & Lancashire Indemnity Co., 7th Cir., 1941, 116 F.2d 741, 745.

Suitable form of judgment entry to be prepared and submitted by defendant.
Amendment dated July 26, 2013 to Revenue Interests Purchase Agreement



 Exhibit 10.6.4 
 July 26, 2013 
 AxoGen, Inc. 
 AxoGen Corporation 
 13859 Progress Blvd. 
 Alachua, FL 32615 
 Attention: Karen Zaderej 

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Reference hereby is made to that certain Revenue Interests Purchase Agreement (the “Revenue Purchase Agreement”), dated as of
October 5, 2012 by and between AxoGen, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), and PDL BioPharma, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“PDL”). Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined herein shall have the
meanings set forth in the Revenue Purchase Agreement. 
 Section 5.16 of the Revenue Purchase Agreement entitles PDL to
receive notice and to participate in the sale of New Securities. PDL hereby agrees that its right of first offer under Section 5.16 is not applicable to the issuance of securities in a registered public offering of securities of the Company. As
such, the parties agree that Sections 5.16(d) of the Revenue Purchase Agreement is hereby deleted, and is replaced and superseded in its entirety by the following: 
 (d) The right of first offer in this Section 5.16 shall not be applicable to (i) issuance of options under the Company’s equity compensation plans, where such plans have been
approved by the Company’s shareholders; (ii) issuance of equity securities to one or more counterparties in connection with the consummation, by the Company, of a strategic partnership, joint venture, collaboration or acquisition or
license of any business products or technology (it being understood and agreed that the primary purpose of any issuance pursuant to this clause (ii) shall not be to raise capital); and (iii) issuance of securities in a registered public
offering of securities of the Company. 
 Except as expressly set forth herein, all other terms of the Revenue Purchase
Agreement remain in full force and effect without modification or amendment. 
 No amendment or waiver of the terms hereof shall
be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by each of the signatories to this Letter Agreement. This Letter Agreement shall be governed by, and construed, interpreted and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the state of New
York, without giving effect to the principles of conflicts of law thereof. This Letter Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an
original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 







 
			
	Very truly yours,
	
	PDL BIOPHARMA, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Danny Hart

	Name:	 	Danny Hart
	Title:	 	Deputy General Counsel


  

			
	Acknowledged and agreed as of the
	date first above written
	
	AXOGEN, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Greg Freitag

	Name:	 	Greg Freitag
	Title:	 	General Counsel
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Halbert S. Washburn, Co-Chief Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the
general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:





(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
Partnership.





/s/ HALBERT S. WASHBURNHalbert
      S. WashburnCo-Chief
      Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLCDated:  November
      6, 2009
MANDATE

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00160-CV

Misha Ferguson, Individually, Misha 

Ferguson, as Minor of N.D.K. and Misha 

Ferguson, as Minor of S.G.F., Appellant

v.

The Enclave at Copperfield, Appellee

Appealed from the County Civil Court at 

Law No. 3 of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 

1057001). Opinion delivered Per Curiam.

TO THE COUNTY CIVIL COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF HARRIS COUNTY, 

GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals on July 7, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or 

reverse your judgment was determined. Our Court of Appeals made its order in these 

words:

Today the Court heard the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on January 21, 2015. Having considered the motion 

and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court 

in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Kem Thompson Frost, Chief Justice of our Fourteenth Court 

of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Houston, July 10, 2015.
Filed 7/13/15 P. v. Frye CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified 

for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for 

publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAMES EDWARD FRYE,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B261270

(Super. Ct. No. 2013018482)

(Ventura County)

James Edward Frye appeals a judgment following his guilty plea to

three counts of committing lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), 

felonies. He was sentenced to an aggregate state prison term of eight years. He 

appealed.

We appointed counsel to represent Frye on this appeal. After 

examination of the record, his counsel filed an opening brief requesting the court to 

make an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

On May 7, 2015, we advised Frye that he had 30 days within which to 

personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No 

response has been received to this date. After examination of the record, we are 
satisfied that Frye's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no 

arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441, 443.) 

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.
Patricia Murphy, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gerard J. Ryan, Appellant.

Submitted October 22, 2012;

decided November 29, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely.
#### In the Matter of Michael A. Cunningham, Appellant, v New York State Department of Labor, Respondent.

Submitted October 29, 2012;

decided December 11, 2012

Motion to dismiss appeal etc. denied.
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 Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH). 

# ACTION:

Availability of public video casting of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice announces the availability of public video casting of the SACATM meeting on June 25-26, 2009. The meeting will be held at the Hilton Arlington Hotel, 950 North Stafford Street, Arlington, VA 22203 and video cast through a link on the SACATM Web site (                        *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/​go/​7441*). Information regarding the meeting was announced in the                         **Federal Register**                         (74 FR 19562) published on April 29, 2009 and available on the NTP Web site (                        *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/​go/​32822*).                     

# DATES:

The SACATM meeting will be held on June 25 and 26, 2009. The meeting is scheduled from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m. on June 25 and 8:30 a.m. until adjournment on June 26, 2009 

# ADDRESSES:

The SACATM meeting will be held at the Hilton Arlington Hotel, 950 North Stafford Street, Arlington, VA 22203 [hotel: (703) 528-6000)]. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

## Archived Video of the Meeting 

                    Following the meeting, the archived video of the meeting will be available on the SACATM meeting Web page (                    *http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/​go/​7441*).                 

Dated: June 12, 2009. 

John R. Bucher, 

Associate Director, National Toxicology Program.

[FR Doc. E9-14502 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### Howard Kagan, Appellant, v HMC-New York, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Decided June 26, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that the orders appealed from do not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
CNX-6.30.13-EX10.2






April 19, 2013
CNX Gas Company LLC
CNX Center
1000 CONSOL Energy Drive
Canonsburg, PA 15317
Attention: Nicholas J. DeIuliis
Re:     Amendment No. 1 to the Asset Acquisition Agreement to Extend Time for the Title Dispute Date and establish the Title Defect Notice Date 
Dear Mr. DeIuliis:


Reference is made to the Asset Acquisition Agreement (“AAA”), dated August 17, 2011, between CNX Gas Company LLC (“CONSOL”) and Noble Energy, Inc. (“Noble”).  Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings assigned thereto in the AAA.
Whereas, Noble has submitted to CONSOL Title Defect Notices from the time of Closing through April 1, 2013, and pursuant to Section 5.3 of the AAA, the Title Dispute Date (as defined in the AAA) was sixty (60) days from the date of each Title Defect Notice.
Whereas, due to the volume of Title Defects that have been submitted to CONSOL, Noble and CONSOL agree that both parties would benefit from an extension of the Title Dispute Date in order to adequately address these Title Defects. 
Therefore, CONSOL and Noble hereby agree to amend the AAA to extend the Title Dispute Date, for Title Defects which were submitted prior to or on  April 1, 2013 (including but not limited to those Title Defects referenced in Noble’s letter to CONSOL dated March 28, 2013, regarding Preliminary Title Defect Notices (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”)), from 60 days to 120 days after April 1, 2013 (the “Extension”). Additionally, CONSOL and Noble hereby agree to amend the AAA to make the Title Defect Notice Date April 1, 2013 for all Title Defects asserted by Noble, regardless of when any particular Title Defect Notice was asserted by Noble (the “New Title Defect Notice Date”).  As such, CONSOL will have the right, but not the obligation to cure any Title Defects asserted by Noble for a period of 180 days after April 1, 2013 (the “New Cure Period”).  However, the Extension, New Title Defect Notice 









Date and the New Cure Period shall not apply to Title Defects that have already been conceded by CONSOL.  Except as amended hereby, the AAA shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
Best Regards,


Noble Energy, Inc.






By: /s/ Shawn E. Conner    
Name: Shawn E. Conner
Title: Vice President




Acknowledged and agreed as of the date first set forth above




CNX Gas Company LLC






By: /s/ Stephen W. Johnson    
Name:    Stephen W. Johnson
Title:    Senior Vice President 










Cc:     Gary Willingham
Donnie Moore
John Lewis
Aaron Carlson
97-141.

#### State v. Raglin.

Hamilton App. No. C-970009. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for an order suspending briefing time pending the filing of the transcript of proceedings,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for an order suspending briefing time pending the filing of the transcript of proceedings be, and hereby is, granted, effective March 5,1997.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that the briefing schedule under S.Ct.Prac.R. XIX(5)(A), shall commence when the Clerk of the Supreme Court receives and files the transcript of proceedings from the trial court.
# Panic Disorder

Panic disorder is an anxiety disorder characterized by panic attacks, which are sudden periods of intense fear that come on quickly and peak within minutes. Attacks can occur unexpectedly or can be brought on by a trigger, such as a feared object or situation. During a panic attack, people may experience symptoms such as heart palpitations, sweating, shortness of breath, feelings of impending doom, or feelings of being out of control. Worry about panic attacks, and the effort spent trying to avoid attacks, can cause significant problems in daily life. Learn more about panic disorder.

## Featured Studies

Featured studies include only those **currently recruiting participants**. Studies with the most recent start date appear first.

----

### CO2 Reactivity as a Biomarker of Non-Response to Exposure-Based Therapy **

**Study Type:** Interventional**Start Date:** November 2, 2022**Eligibility:** 18 Years to 70 Years, Does Not Accept Healthy Volunteers**Location(s):** Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, United States; The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, United States    

Anxiety-, obsessive-compulsive and trauma- and stressor-related disorders reflect a significant public health problem. This study is designed to evaluate the predictive power of a novel biomarker based on a CO2 challenge, thus addressing the central question "can this easy-to-administer assay aid clinicians in deciding whether or not to initiate exposure-based therapy?"

----

### Evaluation of the Genetics of Bipolar Disorder **

**Study Type:** Observational**Start Date:** August 11, 1994**Eligibility:** 18 Years and Older, Accepts Healthy Volunteers**Location(s):** National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, United States    

This study looks to identify genes that may affect a person's chances of developing bipolar disorder (BP) and related conditions.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 215 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 215

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee on 
          Intelligence in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 11, 2019

    Mr. Schiff (for himself and Mr. Nunes) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts for the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee on 
          Intelligence in the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
(hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), 
including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out 
of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for 
committee salaries and expenses, not more than $15,264,953 for the One 
Hundred Sixteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $7,550,369 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2019, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2020; and
            (2) not more than $7,714,584 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2020, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2021.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 022

EX PA R TE C H R I STO PH ER SH A W N K EL LY , A ppl i c ant
ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 9 8 0 7 5 2 - A I N T HE 1 8 4 J UDI CI AL DI S TR I CT COURT TH FROM HA RRI S CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 4 18 S.W .2d 8 24 , 8 26 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 67 ). Ap pli c ant p le a de d guil ty in a sin g le proce eding to five differe nt char g es, ea ch enha nced by prior seque ntial felony

convictions, and wa s
se nte nc e d to thi rt

y -t hr e e y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt i n e a c h c a se , to be se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y . In th is particula r ca use, Appli cant plea ded guilty to attempting to take a we apon fr om a police of fice r , enhanc ed by

two prior seque ntial felonies. He did not appeal his conviction. Applicant conte nds, inte r a lia , that his plea wa s involuntary beca use his trial counsel fa iled2

t o i n v es t i gat e t h e v al i d i ty

o f t h e p ri o r c o n v i ct i o n s u s edt o en h an ce ea ch o f h i s fi v e ch ar ges . Al th o u gh this claim is without merit, counsel ha s provided an a ffidavit in which he conce des that he a dvised Applicant incor

rec tly as to the applicable punishment rang e for this charg e of attempting to take a
wea pon from a police office r. This offe nse is a st ate jail fe lony , enhanc ed by prior seque ntial felony
c onvic tio ns makin gthe a

pp lic a ble punis hme nt ra

ng e fo r thi s off

e ns e tw o to 20 y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt. The other four c harg es we re a ll felonies, enha nced by prior seque ntial felony

convictions to habitual felony punishment rang e of 25 to 99 year s’ or life imprisonment. Althoug h couns el neg otiated a “pac kag e” ple a for

all five ch ar ges, with the sentenc es to run conc urre ntly , the thirty -three y ear sentenc e in this cause is una uthorized. Base d on counsel’s aff idavit, the trial court deter mined that Applicant is entitled to relief with respec t to this cause only
. Ex pa rteHu e rta , 6 9 2 S. W. 2 d 6 8 1 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1985). Relief is g rante d. The judg ment in Cause No. 980752-A in the 184 J udicial District Court th of Ha rr is County

is s e t a sid e , a

nd Ap pli c ant is re mand e d to the c us tod y of the sh e ri ff

of Ha rr is County to a ns we r t he c ha rg e s a s se t out in

the ind ic tme nt. Copi es o f t h i s o p i n i o ns h al l b e s en tt o th e T ex as De p art m en to f C ri m i n al Justice–Corre ctional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: Octobe r 15, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
    SECTION 1350, 
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report
    of Fearless International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB
    for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
    Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carol Stephan,
    Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted
    pursuant to ss. 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; and

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

|Date: | August 14, 2007
|----- | ---------------
|     
|      | By:            
|      | Name:          
|      | Title:         



---
#### Mark W. Borowski, Respondent, v Jeremy J. Ptak, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Decided August 29, 2013

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.