alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kittle *v.*Rogers. Same *v.*Bruner. Same *v.*Solomon and others. Same *v.*Flint.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

November 10, 1887.)

Patents for Inventions—Infringement—Injunction—Expiration of Patent.

The fact that a patent has hut a few weeks to run is no ground for a demurrer to a bill for injunction of an infringement, and an accounting, and will not take away the jurisdiction of the court to grant such relief as the plaintiff may be entitled ter; following *Kittle*v. *De Graaf,*30 Fed. Rep. 689.

In Equity. Bill for injunction.

These are actions in equity, asking for a temporary injunction to restrain defendant from infringing a patent, and for an accounting. It appears that the complainant, Samuel Kittle, was the inventor of a spiral spring for use in mattresses, *(Kittle*v. *Hall.*29 Fed. Rep. 508;) that January 4, 1870, he obtained a patent for his invention, which patent expired January 4, 1887. The number of the patent was 98,505. Actions were brought against several defendants for infringement, the bills being verified from 30 to 50 days before the expiration of the patent, the day for appearance being about a month before the expiration of the patent, and the day for answering or demurring being January 3, 1887. The defendant demurred on the ground that the patent had so short a time to run that the court had no equity jurisdiction.

*James P. Foster,*for complainant.

*Wheeler H. Pechham,*for defendants.

*50Coxe, J.

There is nothing in these causes which distinguishes them from *Kittle*v. *De Graaf,*30 Fed. Rep. 689. It is thought that the language there quoted from *Clark*v. *Wooster,*119 U. S. 322, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 217, is sufficiently comprehensive to include a case where the objection disputing the jurisdiction of the court is taken at the earliest possible moment. Although the point was in that case first presented upon appeal, the decision is clearly to the effect that the trial court may retain jurisdiction, if, at the time the bill is filed, the complainant may obtain the equitable relief prayed for.

The demurrers are overruled. The defendants may answer within 20 "days.
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



I, Gordon Clayton, the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of Find The World Interactive, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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 14, 2007



/s/ Gordon Clayton

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

Name: Gordon Clayton

Title: Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and

Chief Accounting Officer
Exhibit 10.25(iv)

 

	

    	
 
    	
Michael L. Meyer
    
	
 
    	
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
    
	
 
    	
HUMAN RESOURCES
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 651 293 2344
    	
370 WABASHA STREET NORTH
    
	
 
    	
 651 225 3111
    	
ST. PAUL, MN 55102-1390
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
mike.meyer@ecolab.com
    


 

July 16, 2012

 

Mr. Stephen Taylor

c/o Nalco Gulf LTD

PO Box 17063

Jebel Ali

United Arab Emirates

 

Dear Mr. Taylor:

 

On January 1, 2011, you entered into a Change of Control and Severance Agreement with Nalco Company. Pursuant to Section 2 of that Agreement, the Company is providing this notice that the Change of Control and Severance Agreement will terminate on July 31, 2013. A copy of the original agreement is attached for your reference.

 

Effective August 1, 2013, you will be eligible for severance and change of control benefits in accordance with the Ecolab Change of Control and Severance Plans. A copy of the Plan document as well as a Question and Answers document is also attached for your reference.

 

If you any questions regarding this change feel free to contact me directly.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

	
/s/ Mike Meyer
    	
 
    
	
Mike Meyer
    	
 
    
	
Executive Vice President, Human Resources
    	
 
    


 

Attachments
2012 Exhibit 10.44.3






Exhibit 10.44.3


FIRST AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement made and entered into as of April 29, 2009 by and between Sprint Nextel Corporation and MATTHEW CARTER JR. (the “Agreement”) is entered into on this 11th day of December, 2012. Certain capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement as provided herein.


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the covenants and agreements set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby amend the Agreement as follows:


		
	1.
	Effective as of November 6, 2012, Section 11(b) of the Agreement is replaced in its entirety by the following:


    
(b)     A “Competitor” is any entity doing business directly or indirectly (e.g., as an owner, investor, provider of capital or otherwise) in the United States including any territory of the United States (the “Territory”) that provides wireless products and/or services that are the same or similar to the wireless products and/or services that are currently being provided at the time of Executive's termination or that were provided by the Company Group during the two-year period prior to the Executive's separation from service with the Company Group.


In all other respects, the terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement shall remain the same. 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be signed by an officer pursuant to the authority of its Board, and the Executive has executed this Amendment, as of the date set forth above.




SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION            EXECUTIVE




/s/ Sandra J. Price                    /s/ Matthew Carter Jr.            
By: Sandra J. Price,                     MATTHEW CARTER JR.
Senior Vice President, Human Resources
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.2



                    CERTIFICATION OF 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, Shmuel Arvatz, 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 of ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd. on Form 10-K/A for the year
ended December 31, 2001 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/A fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd.



January 24, 2003



                                     By:     /s/ SHMUEL ARVATZ
                                        ----------------------
                                     Name:  Shmuel Arvatz
                                     Title: Executive Vice President and Cheif
                                            Financial Officer




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-K ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd.                                     Page 80
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Da Van CAO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-2638.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 26, 2013.

Filed: Feb. 27, 2013.

Bruce Gillan, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Da Van Cao Lincoln, NE, pro se.

Carlos A. Monzon LINCOLN, NE, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Da Van Cao appeals after he pled guilty to a drug offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(l)(A)(vii), and 846, and the district court1 — upon determining that Mr. Cao was ineligible for safety-valve relief-imposed the applicable statutory minimum prison term of 120 months. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that Mr. Cao’s prison term is excessive.

Upon careful review, we first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mr. Cao was ineligible for safety-valve relief. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (limitation on applicability of statutory mínimums in certain cases; setting forth five-part standard for safety-valve relief); *United States v. Guerra-Cabrera,*477 F.3d 1021, 1026 (8th Cir.2007) (concluding that, because record supported district court’s findings that defendants had failed truthfully to provide all information they had about their offenses, district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that they were ineligible for safety-*624valve relief). We further conclude that Mr. Cao’s 120-month prison term is proper, and not excessive. *See United States v. Watts,*553 F.3d 603, 604 (8th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (noting district courts’ lack of authority to impose sentences below congressionally mandated statutory minimums). Finally, having independently reviewed the record under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Mr. Cao about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.
Exhibit
32.01
  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 PlayBox (US) Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gideon
Jung, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief:
  (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 result of operations of the Company.
  Dated: June
      16, 2009
              
              
              /s/
      Gideon JungBy:
      Gideon Jung
                Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
 
  
 
 1
Exhibit 32.1

CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Westway Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |        |  |                                                                   
|----------------------- |  | ------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  |        |  | /s/ Peter J.M. Harding                                            
|                        |  | Name:  |  | Peter J.M. Harding                                                
|                        |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Director
|Dated: November 9, 2009 |  |        |  |
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 16
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 17
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 18
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 19
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 20
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 21
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 22
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 23
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 24
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 25
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 26
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 27
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 28
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 29
Case 2:11-cv-00900-DMC -JAD Document 6 Filed 03/18/11 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 30
Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 44 Filed 09/15/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 565
#### J. W. Skinner, *as Sheriff of Cowley County, Kansas,*v. C. M. Sedgbeer.

No. 549.

Habeas *Corpus*— Review. In this state the decision of a court or judge in a *habeas corpus*case is not reviewable by an appellate court.

Error from Cowley district court; A. M. Jackson, judge.

Opinion filed February 17, 1899.

Dismissed.

*C. T. Atkinson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jackson & Love,*for defendant in error.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Milton, J.:

In *habeas corpus*proceedings before A. M. Jackson, judge of the district court of Cowley county, the defendant in error was discharged from the custody of the plaintiff in error, the sheriff of said county. The sheriff’s return showed that the petitioner was detained under an order of arrest issued by a justice of the peace in a civil action after judgment had been entered therein. After the order of arrest was issued, and prior to the commitment of the petitioner, the justice summoned a jury, which, after a hearing of testimony, returned a verdict sustaining three of the six grounds stated in the affidavit for the order of arrest. The costs of the *habeas corpus*pro*625ceedings were adjudged against the plaintiff in error, who now asks a review of that proceeding and that the decision of the district judge be reversed and that the defendant in error be remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Cowley county.

As the weight of authority sustains the proposition that an appeal from a decision in *habeas corpus*proceeding cannot be taken, except where provision is made therefor by statute, and as no such provision appears in our laws, the action of the district judge in the premises cannot be reviewed, nor can the questions argued by counsel for both parties be considered. The proceedings in error will be dismissed.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

437 KA 11-02601 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

JUAN ROMAN, ALSO KNOWN AS JUANITO, ALSO KNOWN AS JUAN A. ROMAN, ALSO KNOWN AS JUAN A. ROMAN, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM, PLLC, ROCHESTER (DAVID M. ABBATOY, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered November 9, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Entered: April 26, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
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**





The
      undersigned, Simona Hirsch, the President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director
      of Terrapin Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards
      set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended September
      30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-QSB
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      November 13, 2006


By: 
                /s/ Simona HirschName:Simona
                HirschTitle:President,
                    Chief Executive Officer,
                  and
                    Director
                  (Principal
                    Executive Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Hoffmann Investors Corp., Appellant, v Golan Yuval et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[823 NYS2d 51]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann BriganttiHughes, J.), entered November 22, 2005, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion for an order cancelling a notice of pendency, with related relief, and for partial summary judgment dismissing that portion of the complaint seeking an injunc*512tion directing removal of a retaining wall and cessation of further work, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There was no evidentiary support for a finding that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm substantially outweighing injury the injunction would cause defendant-respondent *(see Matter of Angiolillo v Town of Greenburgh,*21 AD3d 1101, 1104 [2005]). The record discloses no nonspeculative ground to support a finding that defendant’s rebuilt retaining wall presents a danger to plaintiff that would warrant mandating the expensive and difficult work required to remove the rebuilt wall and build yet a third wall. Upon weighing the relative circumstances, the motion court properly found that the encroachment of IV2 to 33A inches onto plaintiffs property is de minimis *(see Generalow v Steinberger,*131 AD2d 634, 635 [1987], *appeal dismissed*70 NY2d 928 [1987], *and lv denied*70 NY2d 616 [1988]; *Christopher v Rosse,*91 AD2d 768, 769 [1982]). With only plaintiffs claim for money damages remaining, the notice of pendency was properly cancelled *(see Ola Contr. Co. v Guild Capital,*285 AD2d 382, 383 [2001]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Friedman, Nardelli, Williams and Malone, JJ.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                     EXHIBIT 8.1



                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

            Subsidiary                     Year of Incorporation         Jurisdiction of Incorporation
            ----------                     ---------------------         -----------------------------
<S>                                        <C>                           <C>
Hoshin GigaMedia Center Inc.                       1998                              Taiwan

Music King Co., Ltd.                               2000                              Taiwan

Point Records Co., Ltd.                            1997                              Taiwan

G-Music Limited                                    2002                      Cayman Islands/ Taiwan

Koos Broadband Telecom Limited                     2001                              Taiwan

GigaMusic.com.Ltd.                                 2000                      Cayman Islands/ Taiwan

GigaMedia (HK) Limited                             2004                            Hong Kong

GigaMedia International Limited                    2004                      British Virgin Islands

Grand Virtual Inc.                                 1997                         Delaware, U.S.A.
                                                                              Massachusetts, U.S.A.

</TABLE>
PM-EX10.16_12.31.12-Q4




Exhibit 10.16 




SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION PLAN OF PHILIP MORRIS IN SWITZERLAND


Supplemental Pension Plan of Philip Morris in Switzerland 
Plan Summary 
 
	
			
	 
	 
	 

	 
Overview:
	 
	A non-qualified plan that provides retirement, disability and death benefits to executives whose retirement benefits would otherwise be limited by the compensation caps under the Federal Law on Occupational Retirement, Survivors’ and Disability Pension Plans in Switzerland (LPP). This plan is not intended to otherwise increase the benefits promised under the broad-based retirement plans.

	 
	 

	 
Eligible Population:
	 
	Swiss-based employees in salary band D or above, or those with pensionable earnings in excess of the salary limit described in article 79c of the LPP, currently 835’200 CHF.

	 
	 

	 
Benefits:
	 
	The benefits under this plan are determined based on the formulas of the Pension Fund of Philip Morris in Switzerland and the Philip Morris in Switzerland IC Plan (formula applicable to salary bands G and below), respectively, without regard to the compensation limits applicable to those plans. Offsetting these benefits under this plan are those benefits earned under the Pension Fund of Philip Morris in Switzerland and the Philip Morris in Switzerland IC Plan and any personal contributions that employees would have made to those plans absent the compensation limits.

	 
	 

	Employee Contributions:
	 
	None

	 
	 

	Company Contributions:
	 
	100% funded by the company into a non-qualified trust arrangement.

	 
	 

	 
Form of Payment:
	 
	Lump sum payment at retirement, disability, death or termination of employment, if the plan’s Board of Trustees determines in its sole discretion that the employee is entitled to benefits from the supplemental plan.

	 
	 

	 
Tax Impact:
	 
	Benefits are taxable to the employee and subject to social security deductions upon distribution. Tax and social security gross-up will be applied.