alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
@article{1216641,
  author = {Lee R. Liu and Dina Rosenberg and Bryan Changala and Philip Crowley and David Nesbitt and Norman Yao and Timur Tscherbul and Jun Ye},
  title = {Ergodicity breaking in rapidly rotating C<sub>60</sub> fullerenes},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-08-17 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Science Magazine},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956798},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi6354},
  language = {en},
}
#### In the Matter of Anthony S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[978 NYS2d 293]

In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, Anthony S. appeals from an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, Westchester County (Malone, J.), entered March 2, 2012, which, after a hearing, found that he committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, and menacing in the second degree, adjudged him to be a juvenile delinquent, and placed him in a limited secure facility for a period of 18 months with no credit for time served.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order of fact-finding and disposition as placed the appellant in a limited secure facility for a period of 18 months with no credit for time served is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements, as the period of placement has expired *(see Matter of Ronald T.,*23 AD3d 567 [2005]; *Matter of Jerrol H.,*19 AD3d 693 [2005]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.

There is no merit to the appellant’s claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the proceeding because the presentment agency failed to present evidence that the appellant was less than 16 years of age when he committed the acts alleged in the petition *(see Matter of Deon L.,*173 AD2d 469, 469-470 [1991]; *Matter of Anthony J.,*143 AD2d 668 [1988]).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the presentment agency *(see Matter of David H.,*69 NY2d 792, 793 [1987]), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would have constituted the crimes of attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, and menacing in the second degree *(see*Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [4]; 160.10 [2] [b]; 120.14 [1]).

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence *(cf.*CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we neverthe*949less accord great deference to the opportunity of the trier of facts to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor *(cf. People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the Family Court’s fact-finding determinations were not against the weight of the evidence *(cf. People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions either are without merit or do not require reversal. Rivera, J.R, Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
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 Intcomex, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Anthony S. Shalom, Chief Executive Officer of Intcomex, 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:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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 14, 2007



/s/ Anthony ShalomAnthony ShalomChief Executive Officer(Chairman of the Board of Directors)


The certification set forth above is being furnished as an exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officers.
S04A0720.

#### HIGHTOWER v. THE STATE.

(597 SE2d 362)

Fletcher, Chief Justice.

Antonio Hightower was convicted of felony murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.1 Hightower appeals those convictions. Finding no error, we affirm.

1. The evidence presented at trial showed that on September 11, 1997, Hightower, Randy Pittman and Paul Smith were socializing at a friend’s house. After an argument, Hightower chased Pittman into a neighbor’s yard and struck him in the head with a beer can. Smith then grabbed Hightower from behind and both men fell to the ground. An eyewitness testified that Hightower got on top of Smith and *40fatally shot him in the head. Hightower then began to fire down the street at Pittman, who was running away, but failed to hit him.

Decided June 7, 2004.

*Sullivan, Sturdivant & Ogletree, Harold A. Sturdivant,*for appellant.

*William T. McBroom III, District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Julie A. Adams, Assistant Attorney General,*for appellee.

After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination of guilt, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Hightower was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted.2 Accordingly, High-tower’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit.

2. Hightower claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to investigate his mental state and did not move for a directed verdict. After reviewing the record we conclude that the trial court correctly denied this claim as Hightower failed to prove either deficient performance or prejudice.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The crimes occurred on September 11,1997. On April 8,1998, Hightower was indicted for malice murder, felony murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, use of a firearm hy a convicted felon, and possession of a firearm hy a convicted felon. On June 15, 1998, Hightower pled guilty to possession of a firearm hy a convicted felon. On June 16,1998, a Spalding County jury convicted Hightower of felony murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, but acquitted him of malice murder. The State nol prossed the charge of use of a firearm by a convicted felon. Hightower was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder and to two consecutive five year terms for the possession convictions. He filed a timely motion for new trial on July 6, 1998, which he amended on December 15, 2000 and November 11, 2002. The motion was denied on November 5, 2003. Hightower filed his timely notice of appeal on December 4,2003. This case was docketed in this Court on January 2,2004, and submitted on the briefs on February 23, 2004.

2

*Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 TO 

FIRST POTOMAC REALTY TRUST 
 2009 EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN 
 WHEREAS, the First Potomac Realty Trust 2009
Equity Compensation Plan (the “2009 Plan”) was approved by shareholders on May 21, 2009; 
 WHEREAS, Amendment
No. 1 to the 2009 Plan was approved by shareholders on May 20, 2010; 
 WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 to the 2009 Plan
was approved by shareholders on May 19, 2011; 
 WHEREAS, the Board does not intend, without the approval of shareholders,
to buy out, for a payment in cash, share options or share appreciation rights granted under the 2009 Plan when the exercise price of such stock option or initial value of such share appreciation right is equal to or greater than the then-current
fair market value of such stock option or share appreciation right; 
 WHEREAS, the Board wishes to amend the 2009 Plan in order
to clarify that such buyouts are prohibited under the 2009 Plan without the approval of shareholders; 
 WHEREAS, the 2009 Plan
provides that the plan will be administered by the “Administrator;” 
 WHEREAS, the Board’s intent was that the
“Administrator” would be the Compensation Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) of the Board, and the Compensation Committee has, in fact, consistently administered the 2009 Plan since it was approved by shareholders on
May 21, 2009; 
 WHEREAS, the Board wishes to amend the 2009 Plan in order to clarify that the administrator of the plan is
the Compensation Committee; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board has the authority to amend the 2009 Plan pursuant to Article XV of the
2009 Plan. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the 2009 Plan is amended as follows: 

1. Section 6.02 of the 2009 Plan, as amended, is hereby amended by the addition of the following sentence at the end thereof:

 “In addition, the Trust shall not buy out, for a payment in cash, an Option granted under the Plan when the Option price
of such Option is equal to or greater than the then-current Fair Market Value, without the approval of shareholders.” 
 2.
Section 7.01 of the 2009 Plan, as amended, is hereby amended by the addition of the following sentence at the end of the second paragraph thereof: 
 “In addition, the Trust shall not buy out, for a payment in cash, a SAR granted under the Plan where the Initial Value of such SAR is equal to or greater than the then-current Fair Market Value,
without the approval of shareholders.” 
 3. Article I of the 2009 Plan, as amended, is hereby amended by the insertion of
the following new Section 1.01 and the re-numbering of those Sections currently numbered Sections 1.01 through 1.20: 







 “1.01. Administrator 

Administrator means the Committee.” 
 4. Except to the extent hereby amended and amended by Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2, the 2009 Plan remains unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect. 

5. The effective date of this Amendment is July 23, 2013.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of**

**Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Robert L. Clayton, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Spherix Incorporated (the “Company”), in compliance with Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission:

 

·                  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.

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert L. Clayton                 |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Robert L. Clayton                     |
|   | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|   | September 16, 2011               |

 

 

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Spherix Incorporated and will be retained by Spherix Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - March 2003 

Regular Retirement 

and Survivor Benefits 

Benefit payments March 2003 March 2002 

Total $735,672,000 $714,245,000 

Retired employees 468,178,000 453,648,000 

Spouses and divorced spouses 88,760,000 87,289,000 

Widow(er)s - aged and disabled 156,847,000 151,895,000 

Other survivors 21,887,000 21,412,000 

Number Average1 Number Average1 

Total 633,900 ......... 2,600 ......... ......... 

Regular employee annuities, total 294,700 $1,569 1,000 $2,210 ......... 

Age 212,700 1,533 2 400 2 2,642 3 $1,119 

Disability, Full Retirement Age and over 36,300 1,397 ......... ......... ......... 

Disability, Under Full Retirement Age 45,700 1,874 400 2,166 

Spouses and divorced spouses 148,400 591 700 736 

Widow(er)s--aged and disabled 161,800 966 700 1,308 

Widowed mothers and fathers 1,100 1,243 4/ 1,124 

Widow(er)s--remarried and divorced 15,000 643 100 781 

Children 12,800 744 100 900 

Other survivors 100 639 ......... ......... ......... 

Average under 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded in 

month 

Social Security 

Monthly benefits March 2003

Being Paid Awarded 

......... 

......... 

$897 

......... 

633 666 

836 906 

439 322 

......... 

5/ / 

588 617 

850 733 

5

Supplemental 

Employee 

Annuities 

Benefit payments 

March March 

2003 2002 Number Average 

$5,495,000 $5,496,000 130,500 $42 

Being paid 

end of month 

Awarded 

in month 

Number Average 

500 $42 

1

Railroad retirement benefits shown are net of reduction for social security benefit entitlement.

2

For employees retiring directly from the railroad industry with full age annuity (their years of service averaged 35); some 200

other age annuities were awarded in the month. 

3

For men aged 65 or over insured on regular basis.

4

Fewer than 50.

5

Remarried and divorced widow(er)s included with aged and disabled widow(er)s and widowed mothers and fathers.

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

(Over) 
Benefits and Beneficiaries Under the Railroad Retirement 

and Unemployment Insurance Systems - (Continued) 

March 2003 

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits 

Unemployment 6,000 $257.20 

Sickness 6,800 257.00 

Unemployment 

Sickness 

Average payment 

Per 

full week 

$453.73 

Number of beneficiaries 

during month 

Per 2-week 

registration period 

456.23 

March 2003 

Benefit payments 

March 2002 

Total $6,965,000 $9,752,000 

4,834,000 5,946,000 

2,131,000 3,807,000 

Note. --Data are on a cash basis (unaudited) and are partly estimated. Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Recycled 

Paper 

Published by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board 

Bureau of the Actuary and the Office of Public Affairs
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



 
 

Exhibit 10.42    
  


 
  AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT    
  


    This amendment ("Amendment") is made by and between Richard E. Kristensen ("Employee") and  Tier Technologies, Inc.
("Tier"), collectively referred to as the "Parties," and amends the Employment Agreement between the Parties dated
March 1, 2000 ("Agreement"). The Amendment is effective as of May 1, 2001. 


 
 

RECITALS    
  


    WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it is in their mutual best interests to modify certain provisions of the Agreement; 


    WHEREAS,
the Parties further agree that such modifications benefit their mutual interests in the Continuing Business (as defined below); 


    NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties
agree as follows: 


    1.  Modification to Salary.  Paragraph 2.1 of the Agreement is hereby modified as follows:
effective May 1, 2001 Employee's base salary shall be one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) per year, payable semi-monthly in arrears in accordance with Tier's regular
payroll practices. 


    2.  Additional Terms.  In the event Employee is terminated from employment for reasons other than Cause
(as defined in the Agreement), Employee shall be entitled to a severance payment in the amount of two hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($275,000), such amount to be reduced by twelve
thousand five hundred dollars ($12,500) for each month Employee remains employed by Tier,
commencing May 1, 2001. This severance payment shall be in addition to any other provisions in the Agreement. 


    3.  Other Provisions.  All other provisions of the Agreement remain in effect. 


    4.  Continuing Business.  Continuing Business is defined as the activities of Tier arising out of the
management consulting business of The SCA Group, Inc., ("Seller"), as more fully defined in the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Assets between Seller and Tier dated as of March 9,
2000. 


 
 

[signature page follows]    
  


1





 


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of May 1, 2001. 



	 	 	Tier Technologies, Inc.
	
 	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/ James Bildner

	 	 	Its:	 	CEO
	 	 	1350 Treat Blvd., Suite 250

Walnut Creek, CA 94596
	

 	
 	

/s/ Richard E. Kristensen
Richard E. Kristensen

1021 Diamond Head Way

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418




2









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.42


AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

RECITALS

[signature page follows]
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,807]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 16, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Leech Industries, Inc., Meadville, Pennsylvania. The workers at the subject facility produce plastics, electrical conductors and injection molds.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15296 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### In the Matter of Danny Nelson, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 816]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was charged in three misbehavior reports with numerous disciplinary rule violations after he refused a correction officer’s directive to turn down his radio or use headphones and, as a result, asked to speak to a correction sergeant whom he attempted to strike and was found with a broken piece of razor blade hidden inside his boot. The first misbehavior report charged him with refusing a direct order, creating a distur*1136bance, interfering with an employee and harassment. The second misbehavior report charged him with engaging in violent conduct, attempting to assault staff and refusing a direct order. The third misbehavior report charged him with possessing a weapon. A tier III disciplinary hearing covering all three misbehavior reports was subsequently conducted. At the conclusion of the hearing, petitioner was found guilty of all charges, except for interfering with an employee and harassment as charged in the first report and refusing a direct order as charged in the second report. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior reports, together with the testimony of correction officials who authored them, provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Toney v Goord,*26 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; *Matter of Abbas v Selsky,*22 AD3d 982, 983 [2005]). Upon reviewing the record, we find no merit to petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer was biased nor is there any indication that the determination flowed from any alleged bias *(see Matter of Folk v Goord,*29 AD3d 1182, 1183 [2006]; *Matter of Williams v Goord,*27 AD3d 808, 810 [2006]). Petitioner’s claim that he was denied meaningful assistance is also belied by the record.

Mercure, J.P, Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
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 on Form 10-Q in accordance with Rule 15(d)-14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Red Trail Energy, LLC (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerald Bachmeier, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|   |                                                                                                                                  
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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







/s/ Gerald BachmeierGerald BachmeierChief Executive OfficerDated: May 12, 2011
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00347-CV

J. T., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF BASTROP COUNTY

NO. 14-16648, HONORABLE BENTON ESKEW, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant J.T. has informed this Court that he no longer wishes to pursue this appeal

and has filed a motion to dismiss it. Appellant’s counsel states that he has conferred with counsel

for appellee Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, which does not oppose this

motion. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: July 10, 2015