alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* * *
    
    TEXT OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELYCONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTEDUNDER 17 C.F.R. SECTIONS
200.80(b)(4) and 230.406




---



##### 



Additional Work
  Time and Material Charges
  Liquidated Damages and On-time Incentives
   Change of Inclination
  Milestone Payments
   2




---



##### 



Additional Satellite #6 Milestones
 provided however
 Launch Option for Additional Satellite #6
     By: 
Name:
    
    /s/ Marc Eisenberg

Marc Eisenberg
    
    
    
    By:
Name:
    
    /s/ Dieter Birreck

Dieter BirreckTitle:
    
    CEO
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Director ProgrammersDate:
    
    July 2, 2008
    
    
    
    Date:
    
    July 2, 2008
  3




---



##### 



% OfMilestone
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Scheduled
    
    
    Contract
    
    
    PaymentPayment #
    
    Milestone Completion Event
    
    
    Month
    
    
    Date
    
    
    Price
    
    
    Amount1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    [* * *]2345678910111213Spacecraft #6 Milestones14
    
    
    
    
    
    
    [* * *]1516*17*100.00
    %
    
    $
    20,000,000
 *
    
    Note
 _ 

Payment for milestones 16 and 17 shall occur in accordance with the MOA  4




---



##### 



Total Price
    
    $20,000,000
    5
@article{1213141,
  author = {Austin Colon and David Kazmer and Amy Peterson and Jonathan Seppala},
  title = {Characterization of Die-Swell in Thermoplastic Material Extrusion},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-05 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Additive Manufacturing},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936015},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 32
 Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1)
    
    To my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Jackie L. ReedJackie L. ReedPresident and CEODate: May 12, 2008/s/ Teresa L. MartinTeresa L. MartinChief Financial OfficerDate: May 12, 2008
#### Roger Carabello, Respondent, v Stanley Luna, Respondent, and Madani Masjid, Inc., et al., Appellants.

[853 NYS2d 663]

A court may, inter alia, issue an order “striking out pleadings or . . . rendering a judgment by default” as a sanction against a party who “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed” (CPLR 3126 [3]). “To invoke the drastic remedy of striking an answer, it must be shown that a defendant’s failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful and contumacious conduct” *(Maignan v Nahar,*37 AD3d 557 [2007]; *see Espinal v City of New York,*264 AD2d 806 [1999]).

Here, in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion to strike the answer of the defendant Delawar Hossain (hereinafter Delawar), defense counsel asserted that her office was unable to locate *680Delawar and therefore, could not produce him for a deposition as ordered by the court. Contrary to counsel’s contention, the mere fact that Delawar had disappeared or made himself unavailable did not preclude the court from striking the answer insofar as interposed by him for failure to appear at a court-ordered deposition *(see Maignan v Nahar,*37 AD3d 557 [2007]; *Robinson v Rollins Leasing Corp.,*288 AD2d 367 [2001]; *Torres v Martinez,*250 AD2d 759 [1998]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the answer of the defendant Delawar for failure to comply with discovery orders. In addition, the court properly granted that branch of the motion which was, in effect, to enter a default judgment against that defendant based upon the complaint, the affirmations submitted in support of the motion, and the depositions of the plaintiff and the defendant Amir Hossain *(see Litvinskiy v May Entertainment Group, Inc.,*44 AD3d 627 [2007]; *Fappiano v City of New York,*5 AD3d 627, 628 [2004]; see *also*CPLR 3215 [fl; *Green v Dolphy Constr. Co.,*187 AD2d 635, 636 [1992]).

However, the court erred in striking the answer insofar as interposed by the defendant Madani Masjid, Inc. (hereinafter MMI). The plaintiff proffered no evidence that MMI exercised control over Delawar and thus was responsible for Delawar’s failure to appear for his deposition *(see Tolz v Valente,*39 AD3d 737, 738 [2007]; *Moriates v Powertest Petroleum Co.,*114 AD2d 888, 890 [1985]). Therefore, MMI should not have been sanctioned for failing to produce a party over which it had no control *(see Tolz v Valente,*39 AD3d 737, 738 [2007], *supra; Moriates v Powertest Petroleum Co.,*114 AD2d 888, 890 [1985], *supra).*Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment against MMI also should not have been granted. Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Miller, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1.


Certification of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)




I, Neil Blosch, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, of Ultra Sun Corp. (the "Registrant") do 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 the best of our knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period June 30, 2010 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):





(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 Registrant.




Dated:  August 16, 2010
By:
/s/ Neil BloschNeil BloschChief Executive Officer, Principal AccountingOfficer
 * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ultra Sun Corp. and will be retained by Ultra Sun Corp. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EX-32.1   Section 1350 Certifications




GENEMEN INC.





Pursuant to Section  18U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Pursuant  to  section  906  of  the   Sarbanes-Oxley   Act  of  2002 (subsection  (a)
and (b) of  section  1350,  chapter 63 of title 18, United  States  Code),  each of the  undersigned  officers  of Genemen Inc.,  a Nevada  corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:





The Annual  Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  February 28, 2009  (the  "Form  10-K")  of  the  Company   fully   complies   with  the
requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934  and  information  contained  in the  Form  10-K  fairly presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial  condition and results of operations of the Company.








Date: October 1, 2009





/s/ Qiaozhen Chen


Qiaozhen Chen


Principal Executive Officer


and Principal Financial Officer
#### In the Matter of Jason Sykes, et al., Respondents, v City of Niagara Falls, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 903]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated decision and order) of the Supreme Court, Niagara County (Ralph A. Boniello, III, J.), entered September 11, 2012 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The judgment granted the petition to compel respondent to permanently designate petitioners as police detectives.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioners are members of the Niagara Falls Police Department (NFPD) Crime Scene Unit and commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking designation as police detectives pursuant to Civil Service Law § 58 (4) (c) (ii). After a hearing, Supreme Court granted the petition, concluding that petitioners were temporarily assigned to the same duties as detectives in the NFPD and thus were entitled to such designation in accordance with the statute *(see id.).*Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioners, the prevailing parties, we conclude that the court’s decision is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence *(see generally Matter of Harnischfeger v Moore,*79 AD3d 1706, 1707 [2010], *lv dismissed*16 NY3d 848 [2011]; *Matter of City of Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency [Alterm, Inc.],*20 AD3d 168, 170 [2005]). Present— Smith, J.E, Centra, Fahey, Garni and Whalen, JJ.
# table40_q5.3_naics
<PAGE>

                                                             EXHIBIT 10.22(a)(i)

                                November 28, 2001

Mr. James S. Balloun

Dear Mr. Balloun:

         The terms of your employment with National Service Industries, Inc.
("NSI") are currently covered by a letter agreement ("Agreement") dated February
1, 1996, between you and NSI. As you are aware, effective November 30, 2001, NSI
is spinning-off the lighting and chemicals businesses currently held by NSI's
subsidiary, Acuity Brands, Inc. ("Acuity"). In connection with the spin-off, you
will become an employee of Acuity or one of its affiliates. Acuity hereby agrees
to assume the Agreement and to perform all of the obligations of NSI under the
Agreement.

                                            Sincerely,

                                            ACUITY BRANDS, INC.



                                            By: /s/ Kenyon W. Murphy
                                                --------------------------
                                                 Kenyon W. Murphy
                                                 Senior Vice President and
                                                 General Counsel
June 2 , 2016



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOHN MICHAEL ENARD , Appellant

NO. 14

- 15

- 00854

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The C ourt orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### Jeanne Schimicci, Appellant, v Dermpath, Inc., et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[852 NYS2d 779]

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint on the ground of spoliation of evidence based on the plaintiffs negligent failure to preserve key pieces of evidence which, in light of the nature of the claims asserted, were crucial to the defense of this matter *(see Lichtenstein v*
      *627
      *Fantastic Mdse. Corp.,*46 AD3d 762 [2007]; *Horace Mann Ins. Co. v E.T. Appliances,*290 AD2d 418 [2002]; *Behrbom v Healthco Intl.,*285 AD2d 573 [2001]; *Squitieri v City of New York,*248 AD2d 201 [1998]).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.
#### SUFFIN v. SPRINGER et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 3, 1940.

Isidor Glasgal, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Austrian & Lance, of New York City, for defendants.

HULBERT, District Judge.

Plaintiff seeks an order directing that the issues as set forth in the third cause of action alleged in the complaint and in the fourth separate defense alleged in the answer be submitted to a jury in advance of the trial of the remaining issues.

No demand for a jury trial was served as provided in Rule 38, F.R.C.P., 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and was therefore waived as a matter of right, but authority is given under Rules 42(b) and 39 (b) when the right has been waived. It is, however, wholly a matter of discretion.

*246The action was commenced February 8, 1940. The complaint purports to set forth three causes of action:

1. For an accounting based upon an alleged agreement made and entered into August 30, 1933. (It does not appear whether the agreement was oral or in writing but the defendants plead the Statute of Frauds and also the Statute of Limitations.)

2. For conversion, and

3. To rescind a settlement between the parties and vacate and set aside a release executed by plaintiff as a part thereof.

The allegations of the first cause of action are re-alleged as part of the second cause of action, and the allegations of both are re-alleged as part of the third cause of action.

Plaintiff proposes the following question for the jury’s determination: “Was the release dated May 31, 1938, signed by the plaintiff obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and concealment?”

There is no reason given why the court should not be as well able to decide that question as a jury. From an examination of the pleadings it is difficult to perceive how this issue can be heard and passed upon without the introduction of proof pertinent to other issues and, in my opinion, could not but result in confusing a jury, especially if the court rigidly held the proof to the issue framed. Motion denied. Settle order.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15756]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,641]


Best Textiles International Ltd, New York, NY; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 27, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by the State of Georgia Employment and Training 
Consultant on behalf of workers of Best Textiles International LTD, New 
York, New York.
    The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. 
State agency representatives cannot file petitions for workers located 
in another state. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of June 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15756 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and

Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors

so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 15-BG-455

IN RE: ANDREW J. BRAUER,

Respondent.

Bar Registration No. 497812 BDN: 406-14

BEFORE: Thompson, Associate Judge, and Nebeker and Farrell, Senior Judges. 

ORDER

(FILED – July 23, 2015)

On consideration ofthe certified order changing respondent’s statusto practice

law in the state of North Carolina to disability inactive and staying the resolution of

his pending disciplinary grievances, this court’s May 27, 2015, order suspending

respondent and directing himto show cause why he should not be suspended pursuant

to a disability suspension under D.C. Bar R. XI § 13 (e), and the statement of Bar

Counsel, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a response to this

court’s order to show cause or the affidavit as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, §14 (g),

it is

ORDERED that Andrew J. Brauer is hereby suspended fromthe practice oflaw

in the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI § 13 (e). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s attention is directed to the

requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI § 14 relating to suspended attorneys and to the

provisions of Rule XI § 16 (c) dealing with the timing of eligibility for reinstatement

asrelated to compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI § 14, including the filing of the required

affidavit. 

PER CURIAM
v. : Criminal No. 11-23 (SRC)

NELSON OTERO,

and MAXCIME CAGAN ORDER

This matter heving been opened to the Court on the

joint application of Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney for

the District of New Jersey (Michael H. Robertson and Jacques S.

Pierre, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, appearing) and defendants

NELSON OTERO (Lorraine S. Gauli-Rufo, Esq., appearing) and

MAXCIME CAGAN (Thomas Arnbrosio, Esq., appearing) and good cause

having been shown, the Court makes the following findings:

1. This case is sufficiently complex, due to the

nature of the prosecution, that it is unreaonab1e to expect

adequate preparation fort pretrial proceedings and trial within

the time limits established by Title 18, United States Code,

Section 3161; and

2. The ends of justice served by a continuance of the

trial date in this matter until December 6, 2011 outweigh the

interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

IT IS, therefore, on this

day of June, 2011

ORDERED that:

the trial date in this matter is continued until December 6,

2011, and that the period of time from June 27, 2011 through
ORDERED that

1. Defendants shall file pretrial motions on or

before September 23, 2011;

2. The Government shall respond to such motions

on or before October 3, 2011;

3. The return date for pretrial motions shall be

October 17, 2011; and

4. Trial shall commence on December 6, 2011, at

10:00 a.m.

—-- ;- -

-

Honorab1etanley R. Chesler

United States District Judge

L rraine 5, Gau.li- ufo sq.

ttorney for Nelson Otero

Thomas Ambrosio, £sq. -

Attorney for Maxcime Cagan

—2--
further

ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall file pretrial motions on or

before September 23, 2011;

2. The Government shall respond to such motions

on or before October 3, 2011;

3. The return date for pretrial motions shall be

October 17, 2011; and

4. Trial shall commence on December 6, 2011, at

10:00 a.m,

Honorable Stanley R. Chesler United States District Judge

Lorraine S. Gauli-Rufo, Esq. Attorney for Nelson Otero

Thonas Anibrosib, Esq.Attorney for Maxcime Cagan

—2—
No. 12-15-00130-CR

LATOSHA MCGEE § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 Appellant §

§

vs. § 12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee

§

§ AT TYLER, TEXAS

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Now comes Austin Reeve Jackson, counsel for Appellant in the above entitled and 

numbered cause, and makes this Motion to Withdraw, and for good cause shows the following:

I.

Counsel was appointed to represent Appellant in the appeal of this matter. Having

undertaken a diligent and thorough review of the record, counsel has concluded that, in his 

professional judgment, there exist no arguable grounds for reversible error. A copy of 

Appellant’s Brief filed pursuant to the requirements of Anders v. California, along with a copy of 

this Motion, has been served on Appellant who has also been informed of the right to file a pro 

se brief by 22 August, the right object to this Motion, and the right to obtain a copy of records 

from counsel. Said notification was sent to Appellant by first class certified mail at:

Inmate

Smith County Jail

206 E. Elm

Tyler, TX 75702

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, undersigned counsel respectfully prays 

that, in accordance with the applicable law, the Court grant this Motion to Withdraw and afford 

Appellant an opportunity to file a pro se brief in this matter. 

ACCEPTED

12-15-00130-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

7/23/2015 10:38:58 AM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 7/23/2015 10:38:58 AM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson

Texas Bar No. 24046139

112 East Line, Suite 310

Tyler, TX 75702

Telephone: (903) 595-6070

Facsimile: (866) 387-0152

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was 

served on counsel for the State by efile. Further, a copy of this Motion was also served on 

Appellant by certified first class mail.

/s/ Austin Reeve Jackson
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6530

WILLIAM EDWARD FRITZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ALLYN AKOSOMITAS; DET. KIMBERLY MILKS,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

CODY GROEBER; MASON WEST,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (2:13-cv-03532-RMG)

Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Edward Fritz, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Lilley Jackson, 

Sandra J. Senn, SENN LEGAL, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Edward Fritz appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Fritz v. Akosomitas, 

No. 2:13-cv-03532-RMG (D.S.C. Mar. 23, 2015). We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Result 5
Exhibit
32.01










CERTIFICATION
  I, Gary D. Halbert, the
President of ProFutures, Inc., the general partner of ProFutures Diversified
Fund, L.P., certify that, except with respect to the paragraph below, (i)
the Annual Report of ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P. on  Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and (ii)
the information contained in such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ProFutures
Diversified Fund, L.P.
  Because
the auditors of ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P. were unable to complete audit
procedures on ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P.'s investment in SHK Diversified
LLC due to uncertainty as to the valuation of such investment, the auditors
issued a qualified audit opinion which is included in the Annual Report of
ProFutures Diversified Fund, L.P. on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2007.




PROFUTURES
DIVERSIFIED FUND, L.P.




By:  ProFutures,
Inc., General Partner









By:  /s/
Gary D. Halbert




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


Gary
D. Halbert


President


May 15,
2008
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 Annual Report of The Topps Company,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended  February 26, 2005 as filed with the  Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Catherine K.
Jessup,  Vice  President and Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  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 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/ Catherine K. Jessup
                                           --------------------------------
                                                 Catherine K. Jessup
                                           Vice President - Chief Financial
                                                 Officer and Treasurer
May 12, 2005