alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.8
AMENDMENT TO UST INC. INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
     The UST Inc. Incentive Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), as amended andrestated as of January 1, 2003, is hereby further amended as set forth below,effective as of January 1, 2003.
 1. The following sentences are hereby added to the end ofSection 4.5 of the Plan, to read as follows:    “Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Committee may determine, in itsdiscretion, (but subject to the approval of the CompensationCommittee), to reduce the amount of Incentive Compensation otherwisedetermined to be payable to Participants (other than ExecutiveOfficers) pursuant to the this Section 4.5. In such event, theexcess of the amount otherwise determined to be payable to suchParticipants pursuant to this Section 4.5 over the actual amount sopayable shall not be used to increase the Incentive Compensationpayable to any other Participant.”  2. Except as set forth above, the Plan is hereby ratified andconfirmed in all respects.
Exhibit 23



LOGO

To the Board of Directors

Northeast Bancorp

Lewiston, Maine

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-172974, 333-171466 and 333-135452) of Northeast Bancorp of our report dated March 12, 2012, related
to our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Northeast Bancorp and Subsidiary included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period from December 29, 2010 through June 30, 2011, relating to Northeast Bancorp after the
merger with FHB Formation LLC, and the period from July 1, 2010 through December 28, 2010, relating to Northeast Bancorp before the merger with FHB Formation LLC.

/s/ SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & Company, P.C.

SHATSWELL, MacLEOD & Company,
P.C.

West Peabody, Massachusetts

March 19, 2012



LOGO
DENY; and Opinion Filed July 13, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00585-CV

IN RE AMERICAN PIPING PRODUCTS, INC., Relator

Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-13662

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial 

court to set aside its order denying relator’s special appearance and instead dismiss the claims 

against relator. Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial 

court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). We conclude the 

relator has failed to establish its right to mandamus relief. We deny the petition. 

150585F.P05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
#### ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, Inc., v. NILAND.

No. 609.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

March 5, 1941.

John H. Lathrop and Claude A. Ferguson (of Lathrop, Crane, Reynolds, Sawyer & ¿vtersereau), both of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Warrick, Koontz & Hazard, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, District Judge.

The defendant by his answer has asserted a counterclaim. This counterclaim is by general averments and yet intimates a vast number of special, particular and peculiar transactions. No effort is made to give dates and circumstances under which it is claimed rights or credits were created or arose and became due the defendant.

A careful inspection of the counterclaim reveals the utter impracticability and impossibility for the plaintiff to make a proper or an intelligent reply thereto. Heretofore, upon a similar motion, counsel for the defendant has filed a voluminous document entitled “Defendant’s Bill of Particulars.” The matter contained therein also is in general language and is insufficient to inform the plaintiff of the particulars it is called upon to answer.

In plaintiff’s motion for a supplemental bill of particulars there is a recital that heretofore the defendant was invited to inspect the books and records of the plaintiff in Chicago, so as to aid him in perfecting his counterclaim. Defendant’s counterclaim must be considered for all purposes of the pleading the same as a new and an original action. While designated as counterclaim, yet in truth and in fact it is a declaration or a petition.

Under the New Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, in this Court it is contemplated that though a party may have a good cause of action, yet, because of his lack of knowledge of details, it is sometimes necessary to take depositions, before perfecting the petition or declaration, and particularly a deposition of the opposing party. Under such circumstances a petition may be at first skeletal in form, the details to be worked out and inserted just as soon as information has been acquired through the deposition.

In this case it would be a simple matter for the defendant to take the deposition of the plaintiff or its officers and agents, or by an inspection of the records the defendant would be able to point out specifically the nature of the several items constituting claims, the time, and circumstance of their accrual. By doing this, the plaintiff can then reply, either admitting or denying *646the truth of the averments. It may be that some of the information is supplied in the form of exhibits to defendant’s bill of particulars heretofore filed. These, however, do not aid the averments of the counterclaim.

The plaintiff is entitled to have its motion sustained. An order supplied by the plaintiff is now executed and filed as a direction to the defendant to supply the information requested.
#### MARIN v. KNOPF et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Oct. 2, 1940.

Sylvester & Harris, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Stern & Reubens, of New York City, for defendants Alfred A. Knopf and Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

*437HULBERT, District Judge.

In the New York State courts a bill of particulars cannot be secured before answer. An order fnay be sought by motion to make the complaint more definite and certain, or its sufficiency may be attacked. In the latter event, if the contentions of the moving party are sustained, the court would undoubtedly allow the plaintiff to amend over. Much time is thus lost.

In this court an application for a bill of particulars is the equivalent of a motion to make more definite and certain. A bill of particulars - is an amplification of the complaint. Its primary purpose is to better enable the moving party to prepare and serve the responsive p-leaáíng.. A bill cannot be obtained after issue joined, but either party may secure further particulars by examination of witnesses, as well as parties, upon any matter relevant to the issue and not privileged.

The real purpose of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, is to eliminate technicalities, delays and expense and secure prompt and effective adjudication on the merits when a cause of action is set forth.

“Relevant” laws of Mexico means laws that are applicable; that is, existing at the time that the alleged cause of action arose. The objection that they are insufficiently pleaded will be cured by the service of a bill of particulars which the plaintiff has agreed to do and the motion as to items (1) and (2) to strike will ■be denied. Settle order on notice.
@article{1207656,
  author = {Zane Comden and John-Edward Draganov and Stephan Schlamminger and Frank Seifert and Charles Waduwarage Perera and David B. Newell and Leon Chao},
  title = {The design and performance of an electronic torque standard directly traceable to the revised SI},
  year = {2023},
  number = {72},
  month = {2023-05-25 04:05:00},
  publisher = {IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936177},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1109/TIM.2023.3279911},
  language = {en},
}
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  ONLINE  ORIGINALS,  INC.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  August 31, 2008,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Shari Sookarookoff, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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



Date:    October 10, 2008


By:      /s/ Shari Sookarookoff
         ----------------------------------
         Shari Sookarookoff
         Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-40752) previously filed by of MultiCell Technologies, Inc. of our report dated January 21, 2005, except for Note 15 as to which the date is February 10, 2005, on our audit of the consolidated financial statements of MultiCell Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries as of November 30, 2004 and 2003 and for the years then ended, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended November 30, 2004.

/s/ J.H. Cohn LLP

New York NY
February 24, 2005
1 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 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-40601

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDUARDO PEREZ, SR., also known as Edwardo Perez,

also known as Edward Jenks Perez,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-97-C-165-1

- - - - - - - - - -

June 16, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:1

Irma M. Sanjines, court-appointed counsel for Eduardo Perez,

Sr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as

required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Perez did

not file a response to counsel’s motion to withdraw. Our

independent review of counsel’s brief and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 
No. 

-2-

 

1 The motion of Albert A. Pena, III, to withdraw his Anders

brief is also GRANTED.

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.1
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, W. Gerald Newmin, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of MultiCell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended November 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of MultiCell Technologies, Inc.




Date: March 2, 2011
/s/ W. GERALD NEWMINW. Gerald NewminPresident, Chief Executive Officer and Director(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit
      32


Section
      1350 Certifications




**STATEMENT
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




The
      undersigned is the Financial Officer of Imperiali Inc. This Certification is
      made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This
      Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Imperiali
      Inc
      for the quarter ended November 30, 2006.




The
      undersigned certifies that such 10-QSB Report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that the information contained in such 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in
      all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Imperiali Inc as of November 30, 2007.




This
      Certification is executed as of January 14, 2008.




/s/
                Daniel ImperatoDaniel
                Imperato-Interim CEO(Principal
                Executive Officer)






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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 481 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 481

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 10, 2019.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on the Budget: Mr. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, to rank immediately 
after Mr. Norman.
    Committee on Education and Labor: Mr. Keller.
    Committee on Oversight and Reform: Mr. Keller.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

HUGH REKEME MURRAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-754

[May 31, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2013-

CF-006458-AXXX-MB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Peggy Natale, Assistant Public 

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kimberly T. 

Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER, C.J., GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
@article{1211221,
  author = {Andrei Kolmakov and Trey Diulus and Kurt D. Benkstein and Stephen Semancik and Majid Kazemian and Matteo Amati and Maya Kiskinova and Luca Gregoratti},
  title = {Operando photoelectron spectromicroscopy of nanodevices: Correlating the surface chemistry and transport in SnO2 nanowire chemiresistors},
  year = {2023},
  number = {266},
  month = {2023-06-29 04:06:00},
  publisher = {Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936804},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elspec.2023.147366},
  language = {en},
}
#### In the Matter of Berish Welz, Appellant, v Congregation Anshe Meseritz, Also Known as Congregation Esath Lei Israel Anshei Meseritz Synagogue, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 877]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered June 7, 2012, which, after a hearing, dismissed the petition brought pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law § 621 seeking to inspect and copy the books and records of respondent Congregation Anshe Meseritz also known as Congregation Esath Lei Israel Anshei Meseritz Synagogue, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly determined that petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was a member of respondent’s congregation *(see*Religious Corporations Law § 195). The record shows that the in the one-year period between July 2008 and July 2009, petitioner’s attendance at services was sporadic and his financial contributions to respondent were not sufficient to support a finding of membership. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, analysis of the one-year period to determine membership was agreed upon by the parties.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
|   | (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: November 12, 2010 |   |   | /s/ Philip Guarnieri                                     |   |
|                    |   |   | Philip GuarnieriPresident and Co-Chief Executive Officer |   |
#### Manfredo Ocampo et al., Respondents, v Abetta Boiler and Welding Service, Inc., Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[822 NYS2d 52]

*333Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Friedman, J.), entered July 29, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not generally give rise to liability to third parties, an exception is created where a contractor fails to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his duties, thus launching a force or instrument of harm *(Vega v S.S.A. Props., Inc.,*13 AD3d 298, 302 [2004]). Here, there was evidence presented that defendant negligently repaired the machine that had previously been taken out of operation. The machine was put back into operation only after it was believed that the repair had been made. Thus, defendant may be found to have assumed a duty of care to plaintiffs either because it exacerbated a dangerous condition or because plaintiffs detrimentally relied on defendant’s performance of contractual obligations to their employer *(Cabrera v Picker Intl,*2 AD3d 308, 309 [2003]).

There are issues of proximate cause that must be determined by the trier of fact. Plaintiffs’ expert’s affidavit was sufficient to raise these issues. The expert affidavit submitted by defendant in reply *(Migdol v City of New York,*291 AD2d 201 [2002]), merely presents a conflicting opinion raising issues of fact and credibility that cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment *(Bradley v Soundview Healthcenter,*4 AD3d 194 [2004]; *see also Kumar v Stahlunt Assoc.,*3 AD3d 330 [2004]).

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.
#### Cleveland Bar Association *v.*Armon.

[Cite as *Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Armon*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 497.]

(No. 96-2785

Submitted February 19, 1997

Decided June 4, 1997.)

*499
      *Harold H. Reader*and *Virginia S. Brown,*for relator.

*Per Curiam.*

This case involves a lawyer who failed in his duty to his clients by appropriating his clients’ funds, neglecting their interests, and engaging in a pattern of deceiving them. The number of these incidents indicates that respondent cannot or will not conform to our required ethical standards. Moreover, *500respondent has failed in the duty he owes to his profession to cooperate in disciplinary investigations.

We accept the findings and conclusions of the board. We believe, however, that conduct such as respondent’s warrants a more severe sanction than an indefinite suspension. Respondent’s pattern of client neglect and total disregard of our investigatory process renders him unfit to be continued on the roll of those who are allowed to engage in the practice of law in Ohio. We have held in many cases that appropriation of client funds and a pattern of neglect of client interests warrant disbarment. *Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Churilla*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 348, 678 N.E.2d 515; *Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sterner*(1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 164, 167, 672 N.E.2d 633, 635, and cases cited therein. Respondent is hereby permanently disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent and would indefinitely suspend respondent.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.25

              SUMMARY OF ADVISORY ARRANGEMENT FOR RICHARD BECKWITT

     The Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of D.R. Horton, Inc. (the
"Company") approved an advisory arrangement with EVP Capital, L.P. ("EVP"), an
entity beneficially owned by Mr. Beckwitt, under which, effective July 1, 2001,
Mr. Beckwitt would advise and assist the Company with respect to its homebuilder
acquisitions and would continue to monitor the investments of Encore Venture
Partners II (Texas), L.P. and its affiliates. Under such arrangement, Mr.
Beckwitt would also be active in the process of integrating acquired
homebuilding operations. Under such arrangement, EVP would be paid a base
retainer of $25,000 per month plus an additional amount determined by the
Company in its discretion based on the extent of Mr. Beckwitt's contribution to
the Company's acquisition activities. Such arrangement has been modified for the
first three quarters of fiscal year 2002 to pay EVP at a quarterly rate of
$500,000, in addition to reimbursement of expenses, in connection with Mr.
Beckwitt's continued advice and assistance.
<PAGE>   1
                                  Exhibit 99.2



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

Board of Directors and Stockholders
Northeast Bancorp, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated statement of financial condition
of Northeast Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and
the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Northeast Bancorp,
Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 1998 and 1997 and the consolidated
results of their operations and their cash flows for the then ended, in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


/s/  Whisman, Grygiel & Giordano, P. A.


January 15, 1999