alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### PACIFIC VEGETABLE OIL CORPORATION v. RUTGER BLEECKER & CO., Inc.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec. 29, 1942.

*236Gustave Simons, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Goodman & Blumberg, of Amityville, N. Y., for defendant.

HULBERT, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing that a commission issue for the examination of Bernard T. Rocca of San Francisco, California, president of the plaintiff corporation, as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, upon written interrogatories to be annexed to said commission, is opposed by the defendant upon two grounds:

(a) That the application is based on an affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney; and (b) that it does not satisfactorily appear that the witness will be unable to attend the trial, which it is expected will be reached early in the approaching new year.

Rule 26(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides: “By leave of court * * * or without such leave after an answer has been served, *the testimony of any person,*whether a party or not, *may be taken at the instance of any party*by deposition *upon*oral examination or *written interrogatories*for the purpose of discovery or *for use as evidence in the action*or for both purposes.” (Italics mine)

The right of the plaintiff to take Mr. Rocca’s deposition is clear. That the application is made upon the affidavit of the plaintiff’s attorney is of no consequence.

Subdivision (d) (Par. 3) of the same rule specifies the limitations under which the deposition of a witness may be used on the trial. It will be for the trial judge to determine at the proper time, after the return of the deposition, whether this deposition may be read if the witness is not present.

Motion granted. Settle order on notice.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 2290

_____________________________
J EFFREY L YNN M C D ONALD ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamu s

— Original Jurisdiction

.

September 12, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm’n , 807 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

W OLF , R OWE , and K ELSEY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final un til disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Jeffrey Lynn McDonald, pro se
, Petitioner

. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1115, -1246 GEORGE E. KERSEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS, Defendant-Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in case nos. 1:06-MC-416 and 1:07-MC-302, Judge Emmett G. Sullivan. 

### ORDER The court considers whether to grant George E. Kersey an extension of time to file his brief. Kersey submitted an informal brief on January 5, 2009. However, the court's March 4, 2009 order required Kersey to file a brief limited to the issue of the district court's denial of Kersey's in forma pauperis motion. Thus, Kersey's January 5 brief is rejected for filing and Kersey is directed to file a replacement brief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) Kersey's January 5 brief is rejected for filing.Kersey is directed to file a replacement brief within 30 days of the date of

filing of this order or his appeal will be dismissed.

The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks' brief due date should be calculated from the date of service of Kersey's replacement brief. FOR THE COURT


### APR 14 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date

cc: George E. Kersey Alan Burch, Esq. s17 Jan Horbaly 

### FILED Clerk US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
APR 14 Z009 JRN liunonLY CLERK

2009-1115, -1246 2
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 3, 2003 

K. D. F. , ET AL. v. J. F. 

 Appeal from the Chancery Court for Greene County

No. 20010271 Thomas R. Frierson, II, Chancellor

FILED JANUARY 29, 2003

No. E2002-01117-COA-R3-CV 

This is a suit by K. D. F. and her present husband, R. J. F., Jr., seeking to terminate the parental

rights of J. F. as to Z.T.J.F (d.o.b. June 8, 1998), preparatory to Mr. F. adopting the child in a future

proceeding. Mr. F. appeals a determination by the Trial Court that his parental rights should be

terminated, contending that the statutory grounds for such a determination were not met. We affirm.

Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed:

Cause remanded

HOUSTON M.GODDARD,P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P.FRANKS and

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR.,JJ., joined.

J. Russell Pryor, Greeneville, Tennessee, for the Appellant, J. F. 

J. Gregory Bowman, Greeneville, Tennessee, for the Appellees, K. D. F. and R. J. F., Jr.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After a review of the record, including the judgment entered by the Trial Court and the briefs

of the parties, we are of the opinion that this is an appropriate case for affirmance under Rule 10 of

this Court.

Before concluding, we note that–although not raised by Mr. F.–the Trial Court did not find

by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mr. F.’s parental rights was in the child’s best

interest. Instead, the Court found that termination was “clearly in the manifest best interests” of the

child. 
-2-

We believe the words “manifest” and “clear and convincing” are synonymous as they relate

to the required statutory measure of proof. However, even if not, we, upon our de novo review, find

that the evidence is clear and convincing relative to the best interest of the child.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed and the cause remanded

for such further proceedings, if any, as may be necessary and collection of costs below. Costs of

appeal are adjudged against J. F. 

_________________________________________

HOUSTON M. GODDARD, PRESIDING JUDGE
Exhibit 10.60

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                                 BY AND BETWEEN
                   NATIONAL MEDICAL HEALTH CARD SYSTEMS, INC.
                                       AND
                                  DAVID GERSHEN


     This First  Amendment  ("Amendment")  dated as of the 6th day of  November,
2002 by and between  NATIONAL  MEDICAL  HEALTH CARD  SYSTEMS,  INC.,  a Delaware
corporation, having an office at 26 Harbor Park Drive, Port Washington, New York
11050 (the  "Company")  and David  Gershen  ("Employee"),  who  resides at 2 Pal
Court, Plainview, N.Y.11803.

                                   WITNESSETH:

     WHEREAS, on March 27, 2000 the Company entered into an Employment Agreement
with Employee (the "Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS,  both the Company and the Employee  are desirous to amend  certain
provisions of the Agreement.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the mutual  covenants  and promises
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

     1. Section 3 of the Agreement  shall be amended by adding Section 3.4 which
shall state the following:

          In the event of a Change of  Control  (as  defined  in  Section  5.5),
     Executive  shall be  entitled  to receive a  transaction  bonus  payable as
     follows:  (i) 50% of the  Executive's  current  Base Salary  payable on the
     closing of the transaction  constituting the Change of Control and (ii) 50%
     of the  Executive's  current  base salary  payable the earlier of six month
     from the closing of the transaction  constituting  the Change of Control or
     the effective  date of termination of the Executive for a reason other than
     pursuant to Section 5.2 of the Agreement.

     2. All other terms of the  Agreement  shall remain in full force and effect
as previously written.

     IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the Company and  Employee  have  executed  this First
Amendment the day and year first above written.

                                            NATIONAL MEDICAL HEALTH CARD
                                            SYSTEMS, INC.
                                            By:


                                            ----------------------------------
                                            James Bigl, Chief Executive Officer





                                           -----------------------------------
                                           David Gershen
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

I, Imad Kamel Yassine, Chief Financial Officer, of Bioshaft
Water Technology, Inc. (the Company), 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 my knowledge:

| | (a) | the Quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      first quarter ended July 31, 2010, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | (b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                      

|By:    | /s/ Imad Kamel Yassine                                              
|------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------
|Name:  | Imad Kamel Yassine                                                  
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer                                             
|       | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting Officer)
|Date:  | September 20, 2010                                                  

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5098

To provide more effective congressional oversight over the operations and 

administrative expenses of the Comptroller of the Currency, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2004

Mr. GUTIERREZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL

To provide more effective congressional oversight over the 

operations and administrative expenses of the Comptroller of the Currency, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Comptroller of the 

5 Currency Accountability Act’’. 
2

•HR 5098 IH 

1 SEC. 2. ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE 

2 CURRENCY. 

3 Section 5240 of the Revised Statutes of the United 

4 States (12 U.S.C. 482) is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(g) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

8 provision of this title or any other provision of law, 

9 the Comptroller of the Currency may not incur any 

10 obligation for administrative expenses in carrying 

11 out authorized activities for any fiscal year in excess 

12 of the amount provided in advance in an appropria13 tion Act for such expenses for such year. 

14 ‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized to 

15 be provided such amounts as may be necessary for 

16 the administrative expenses of the Comptroller of 

17 the Currency for fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 

18 2007.’’.

Æ
Law Offices of Stephen Turano

60 Park Place

Suite 703

Newark, NJ 07102

(973) 236-0010

Attorney for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MAGNO.: 11-8018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Criminal Action

v. : Hon. William H. Walls, U.S.D.J.

ARTS VENTURA : ORDER MODIFYING ORDER

SETTING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE

Defendant.

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Stephen Turano, attorney for the

Defendant Aris Ventura in the above-captioned matter, upon an application for an Order

modifying the Order Setting Conditions of Pretrial Release to remove the condition of curfew

with home detention and electronic monitoring; and it appearing to the Court that Pretrial

Services and Ronnell Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, consents to the application ofthe

Defendant;

NOW THEREFORE, it is on this 6L-3 day ofJuly, 2012

ORDERED, that the Order Setting Conditions of Release be and the same hereby is

modified to remove the condition of curfew with home detention and electronic monitoring; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thatotherof lase remain the same

(Hoiii H. s, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:11-mj-08018-MCA Document 15 Filed 07/25/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 27
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Linwood Gerald KENNY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7371.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

Linwood Gerald Kenney, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Linwood Gerald Kenny appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Kenny,*No. 3:01-cr-00185-FDW-1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 3, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 10.16 (1)






Exhibit 10.15


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED 
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is effective as of January 1, 2012 (the "Effective Date"), by and between FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and BRENT B. BICKETT (the "Employee") and amends that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of July 2, 2008, as amended on February 4, 2010 (the “Agreement”).  In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1.The first sentence of Section 4 of the Agreement is deleted and the following shall be inserted in lieu thereof:  


2.Salary.  During the Employment Term, the Company shall pay the Employee an annual base salary, before deducting all applicable withholdings, of no less than $276,500 per year, payable at the time and in the manner dictated by the Company's standard payroll policies.


3.Section 5(c) of the Agreement is deleted and the following shall be inserted in lieu thereof:
(c)    eligibility to elect and purchase supplemental disability insurance sufficient to provide sixty percent of the Employee's pre-disability Annual Base Salary, subject to certain limitations contained in the disability policies; 
4.The last sentence of Section 5(d) is deleted and the following shall be inserted in lieu thereof:


Unless provided otherwise herein or the Board determines otherwise, no Annual Bonus shall be paid to the Employee unless the Employee is employed by the Company, or an affiliate thereof, on the last day of the Annual Bonus measurement period.
5.Section 13(c) of the Agreement is deleted and the following shall be inserted in lieu thereof:


		
	(c)
	Exclusion.  Working, directly or indirectly, for any of the following entities shall not be considered competitive to the Company or its affiliates for the purpose of Section 13(b) (After Employment Term Non-Compete):  (i) Fidelity National Information Services, Inc., its affiliates or their successors; or (ii) the Company, its affiliates or their successors if this Agreement is assumed by a third party as contemplated by Section 21.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Amendment to be effective as of the date first set forth above.
	
		
	 
	FIDELITY NATINOAL FINANCIAL, INC.

	 
	 

	 
	By:/s/ George P. Scanlon

	 
	Its: Chief Executive Officer

	 
	/s/ Brent B. Bickett

	 
	BRENT B. BICKETT
#### Ndidi Nwanefuru UDOGWU, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 12-2301.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 19, 2013.

Filed: March 1, 2013.

Jonathan Willmoth, Wilmoth Immigration Law, LLC, Kansas City, MO, for Petitioner.

Jeffrey Bernstein, Karen Yolanda Drummond, Gregory Darrell Mack, U.S. Department of Justice, Richard M. Evans, Assistant Director, Civil Division, Office Of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Nigerian citizen Ndidi Nwanefuru Udog-wu petitions for review of an order of the *630Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an immigration judge’s decision denying her asylum and withholding of removal.1 She also moves to supplement the record, and we grant her motion.2

Udogwu was denied asylum based on the untimeliness of her application, and was denied withholding of removal based on the merit of her request. After careful review, we find no basis for granting the petition. First we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determinations regarding the untimeliness of Udogwu’s asylum application. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) (no court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination regarding untimeliness of asylum application); *Gumaneh v. Mukasey,*535 F.3d 785, 788 (8th Cir.2008) (court may not review finding that alien did not file for asylum within reasonable period of onset of extraordinary or changed circumstances). Second, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the denial of withholding of removal. *See Wijono v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir.2006) (denial of withholding of removal is upheld unless petitioner shows that evidence was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could reach agency’s decision).

In sum, we grant Udogwu’s motion to supplement the record, and we deny the petition for review. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. Udogwu was also denied relief under the Convention Against Torture, but she does not address this claim in her brief. *See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.2004) (appellant waives claim that is not meaningfully raised in opening brief).

2

. The immigration judge took judicial notice of the 2009 Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Nigeria, but it was not included in the administrative record.
#### UNITED STATES v. VIGILANTE.

Civil A. No. 326-49.

United States District Court D. New Jersey.

April 17, 1950.

Joseph Stein, New York City, for plaintiff, by Max W. Meisner, Newark, N. J., and Samuel Hodes, New York City, of counsel.

R. Sar Misohiara, Morristown, N. J., for defendant.

FAKE, Chief Judge.

The issues here arise on motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A.

*344The Court is called upon here to pass upon the truth of an affidavit made by a government attorney, the substance of which is in direct conflict with a well-pleaded allegation in the answer. There is nothing in the' affidavit to disclose personal knowledge by the affiant as required by Rule 56(e). It appears to be based largely on hearsay. The courts in this Circuit are stripped of all power so to do. See Hart & Co. v. Recordgraph Corp., 3 Cir., 169 F.2d 580; Reynolds Metals Co. v. Metals Disintegrating Co., D.C., 8 F.R.D. 349; affirmed, 3 Cir., 176 F.2d 90.

The issues involved require more than is disclosed by this cold record. See my opinion in U. S. A. v. Sabatino, D.C., 10 F. R.D. 274.

Moreover, the admissions demanded here are substantially denied under oath.

The motion for summary judgment is, therefore, denied in all things.
908 A.2d 178

#### IN THE MATTER OF HARRY E. FRANKS, JR., AN ATTORNEY AT LAW (ATTORNEY NO. 037271989).

October 18, 2006.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 06-146, concluding on the record certified to the Board pursuant to *Rule*1:20-4(f) (default by respondent), that HARRY E. FRANKS, JR., of NORTHFIELD, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1989, should be censured for violating *RPC*1.2(a) (failure to abide by client’s decisions regarding representation), *RPC*1.3 (lack of diligence), *RPC*1.4(b) (failure to keep client reasonably informed about the status of matter), *RPC*8.1(b) (failure to cooperate with ethics authorities), and *RPC*8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that HARRY E. FRANKS, JR., is hereby censured; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in *Rule*1:20-17.