alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony Milazzo et al., Appellants, v Jean Charles Gesner et al., Respondents.

[822 NYS2d 49]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered July 25, 2005, which granted the motion by defendants Gesner and Alexandre and the cross motion by defendant Mayer for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs failed to set forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate a question of fact that they had sustained serious injuries as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Their medical submissions did not specify who had performed the range-of-motion tests on each plaintiffs cervical and lumbar spine, when they were performed, the objective nature of the tests, what the normal range of motion should be and whether plaintiffs’ limitations were significant *(see Vasquez v Reluzco,*28 AD3d 365, 366 [2006]; *Nagbe v Minigreen Hacking Group,*22 AD3d 326, 327 [2005]).

Although plaintiffs’ MRIs revealed positive findings, in order to raise a triable issue of fact, those positive findings must be accompanied by objective findings of either a specific percentage *318of the loss of range of motion or a sufficient description of the qualitative nature of the limitations based on the normal function, purpose and use of the body part *(id.).*Plaintiffs’ submissions met neither standard.

Neither plaintiff offered any reasonable explanation for failure to seek treatment for nearly three months after the accident, or for choosing to terminate treatment more than three years ago. Such unexplained gaps in treatment seriously undermine plaintiffs’ claims of serious injury *(see Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]; *Rivera v Benaroti,*29 AD3d 340, 342 [2006]). Concur—Buckley, EJ., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.
Case 3:11-mj-05017-TJB     Document 157     Filed 05/18/11     Page 1 of 3 PageID: 280

Case 3:11-mj-05017-TJB     Document 157     Filed 05/18/11     Page 2 of 3 PageID: 281

Case 3:11-mj-05017-TJB     Document 157     Filed 05/18/11     Page 3 of 3 PageID: 282
Case 3:11-cv-02050-MAS-DEA Document 52 Filed 10/02/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 688
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 02-40437

Summary Calendar

MARIA TERESA GARZA, individually and as next friend of Jonathan Lee

Garza, Eulalio Garza IV, Christopher Eli Garza, and Cinthia

Michelle Garza, Minors and as Representative of the Estate of

Eulalio Garza III, deceased,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

VERSUS

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; et al., 

 Defendants

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi.

(C-01-CV-76)

October 30, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges,

PER CURIAM:*

Maria Teresa Garza, et al., (Plaintiffs) are the surviving

spouse and minor children of Eulalio Garza, III, who was killed in
g:\opin-sc\02-40437.opn.hrd.wpd

an automobile/train accident while riding in a vehicle owned by his

employer, Country Shop Nursery, and driven by uninsured fellowemployee, Felipe Rodriguez. Plaintiffs filed suit against State

Farm Automobile Insurance Co. (State Farm) for breach of contract

and violation of Article 21.55 of the Texas Insurance Code because

State Farm has denied them uninsured motorist coverage under an

automobile insurance policy purchased by Garza's employer from

State Farm. The district court had jurisdiction because of

diversity of citizenship.

The parties waived trial by jury and the case was tried to the

court. The district court found for defendant State Farm on all

claims and entered a final judgment that plaintiffs take nothing.

Plaintiffs appealed to this court.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts,

and relevant portions of the record, and for the reasons stated by

the district court in its "Verdict of the Court" filed February 15,

2002, we AFFIRM the final judgment entered on the same date, that

plaintiffs take nothing. AFFIRMED.
EX-10.24



 Exhibit 10.24 
 Compensation Arrangements for 
 Certain Named Executive Officers

 Set forth below is a summary of the compensation arrangements of the executive officers to be named in the Company’s 2013 Proxy
Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders, other than Mr. Jon P. Vrabely, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, who is covered by a written employment agreement filed as an exhibit to the Company’s Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the “Form 10-K”). 
 Each of the executive officers named below is an
employee at will whose compensation and employment status may be changed at any time in the discretion of the Company’s Board of Directors. 
 Base Salaries. In connection with the Company’s cost control efforts in response to the prolonged, severe decline in the housing market, the Company instituted a 10% reduction in the base
salaries of certain employees, including each of the executive officers, which became effective in November 2011 and, with respect to the executive officers, is still in effect. 
 The current base salary for each of the named executive officers, other than Mr. Vrabely, after giving effect to the 10% reduction instituted in November 2011 as described above is as follows:

  

					
	 	  	Base Salary	 
	 Name and Principal Position
	  	(After 10%
reduction)	 
	 Philip W. Keipp —

Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
	  	$	225,000	  
	 Gregory W. Gurley —

Vice President, Product Management and Marketing
	  	$	202,500	  

 Base salaries are adjusted from time to time. Any such adjustments are approved by Board of Directors upon recommendation
of the Management Organization and Compensation Committee. 
 Bonuses and Equity Awards. These executive officers are also eligible to
participate in the Company’s annual incentive compensation plans and equity incentive compensation plans, as provided in the terms of such plans. Such plans, and any forms of awards thereunder providing for material terms, are included as
exhibits to the Form 10-K or to later-filed periodic reports.
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 Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated June 7, 2007, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on June 20, 2007, 72 FR 34040, Cambrex Charles City, Inc., 1205 11th Street, Charles City, Iowa 50616-3466, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
ScheduleOpium, raw (9600)
IIPoppy Straw Concentrate (9670)
II
 The company plans to import the basic classes of controlled substances for manufacture of active pharmaceutical ingredients for sale to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) and determined that the registration of Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Cambrex Charles City, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: June 24, 2009. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E9-16295 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
ORDER TO ANSWER

ERIC H. HOLDER, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner having filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.SC. § 2241; and based upon Petitioner’s affidavitof indigence,

IT IS on this day of

, 2011;

ORDERED that Petitioner’s Øication to proceed in forma

aiperis is hereby granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve copies of the

Petition, this Order, and all other documents docketed in this

matter upon Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested,

with all costs of service advanced by the United States; and it is

further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward,

ci ectronic.aliy or by regular mail, a cony of the Petition, this

Order, and a±l otner Oocuments Oockeued in uRis matter to the

Chief, Civil Division, United States Attorney’s Office, 970 Broad

Street, Room 700, Newark, NJ 07102; and it is further
and it is further

ORDERED that, within 30 days after the date of entry of this

Order, Respondent shall electronically file a full and complete

answer to said Petition, which responds to the factual and legal

allegations of the Petition paragraph by paragraph; and it isfurther

ORDERED that the answer shall state the statutory authority

for Petitioner’s detention, 28 U.S.C. § 2243; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent shall raise by way of the answer any

appropriate defenses which Respondent wishes to have the Court

consider, including, but not limited to, exhaustion of

administrative remedies, and also including, with respect to the

asserted defenses, relevant legal arguments with citations to

appropriate legal authority; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent shall electronically file with the

answer certified copies of the administrative record and all other

documents relevant to Petitioner’s claims; and it is further

ORDERED that all exhibits to the Answer must be identified by

a descriptive name in the electronic filing entry, for example:

“Exhibit #1 Transcript of [type of proceeding] held on XX/XX/Xxxx” or

2
further

ORDERED that, within 7 days after any change in. Petitioner’s

custody status, be it release or otherwise, Respcndents shall

electronically file a written notice of the same with the Clerk of

the Court; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve this Order on

Petitioner by regular mail.

• CHESLER

States District Judge
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank A. Pici, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of PVG GP, LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



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



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



|                       |  |  |  |                                           
|---------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: November 6, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Frank A. Pici                         
|                       |  |  |  | Frank A. Pici                             
|                       |  |  |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit
to the Report. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
H. R. 5005

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September

30, 2004, for additional disaster assistance.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the

following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury

not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September

30, 2004, to provide emergency supplemental appropriations for

additional disaster assistance, namely:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY EMERGENCY

PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

DISASTER RELIEF

For an additional amount for ‘‘Disaster Relief’’, $2,000,000,000,

to remain available until expended, of which up to $30,000,000

may be transferred to ‘‘Small Business Administration--Salaries

and Expenses’’, for administrative expenses to carry out the disaster

loans program authorized by section 7(b) of the Small Business

Act: Provided, That the amounts provided herein are designated

as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con.

Res. 95 (108th Congress), as made applicable to the House of

Representatives by H.Res. 649 (108th Congress) and applicable

to the Senate by section 14007 of Public Law 108–287.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2004’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
EX-10.35



 Exhibit 10.35 
 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), is entered into as of the 14th day of
December 2012 (the “Effective Date”) by and between MARTIN S. HUGHES (the “Executive”) and REDWOOD TRUST, INC., a Maryland Corporation (the “Company”). 

WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company have entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of March 31,
2009 (as subsequently amended as of March 17, 2010, February 24, 2011, and May 17, 2012, the “Employment Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company desire to enter into this Agreement for purposes of amending the Employment Agreement as set forth herein; 

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy which is hereby acknowledged, the Executive and the
Company hereby agree that the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows effective upon the Effective Date: 
 (1)
Section 7(c) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows: 

“Release Agreement.  As a condition of receiving any of the payments and benefits set forth in this Section 7,
the Executive shall be required to execute a mutual release agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C or Exhibit D, as appropriate, and such release agreement must have become effective in accordance with its terms within 75 days following
the termination date. The Company, in its sole discretion, may modify the term of the required release agreement to comply with applicable state law and may incorporate the required release agreement into a termination agreement or other agreement
with the Executive.” 
 Except as hereby specifically amended or modified, the terms of the Employment Agreement, as
amended by this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect. This Agreement may be executed by the parties hereto in two counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same
agreement. This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the State of California (without regard to conflict of law principles). 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officer, and the Executive has executed this Agreement, as of the date first above written.

  

							
		 		 	REDWOOD TRUST, INC.
				
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Andrew Stone

		 		 		 	Name: Andrew Stone
		 		 		 	Title: General Counsel & Secretary
			
		 		 	MARTIN S. HUGHES
				
		 		 		 	 /s/ Martin S. Hughes
**Exhibit
      32.2**


**CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CYBRA Corporation. (the
      “Company”) for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold Brand, Interim
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
      that:





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





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





Date:
                May 20, 2008
            
            /s/
                Harold BrandHarold
                BrandInterim
                Chief Financial Officer
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 

2

45 F.3d at 927 (5th Cir. 1995).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-20768

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

STEVEN JOSEPH GARZA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-92-CR-238-2)

September 14, 1998

Before WISDOM, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Joseph Garza, a former police officer, appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute cocaine and for use of a communication facility to commit a felony. He

argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever his trial from that

of his codefendant Gatewood, also a former police officer. Garza argues that he was prejudiced by

the district court’s admission of evidence concerning Gatewood’s prior bad acts including

Gatewood’s theft of money from a murdered drug dealer. We affirm.

In United States v. Musquiz,

2

 we rejected the identical argument raised by Gilbert Martinez

Musquiz, a codefendant of Garza and Gatewood. We wrote:

“Defendants who are indicted together generally should be tried together, particularly in
 

3

Id. at 931 (internal citations omitted).

2

conspiracy cases. ‘A district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a

serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants.

. . .’ We review for abuse of discretion. Here, the district court was well within its discretion

in relying on limiting instructions. We presume that jurors follow the law. Evidence of one

defendant’s past crimes‘does not ordinarily justify severance,’ even though it is inadmissible

against a codefendant. The prosecutor did not try to ascribe Gatewood’s theft to Musquiz.

In light ofthe explicit limiting instruction, the claimed link between the conspiracy instruction

and the spillover guilt is too tenuous to amount to a serious risk of prejudice. There was no

abuse of discretion.”3

This reasoning applies equally to Garza’s argument for severance. His position as a former police

officer is not sufficient to justify treatment different from that of his codefendant. The district court

did not err in denying Garza’s motion.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
I\ fHf \lFLDST\lE

()F DI

lRk I (JH RI

I-OR 1111- DNIRR FOFNI-\\ TERSE

UNITED STATES OF AERICA : CRIMINAL NO. 1 Ucr-00292SRC

VS.

JUAN (iC)MFZ. ORDER

THIS MATTER, being opened to the Court hr Robert 3. Dc Groot, Esq., attorney

for Defendant Juan (Jomez and based upon the representation made by Robert J. DeGroot, Esq.

ftom inlbrrnation supplied hr Juan (iomez and his wife Mavra Polanco and it appearing that

from that information that the father of Mavra Polanco who resides in the Dominican Republic is

seriousl\ ill and the said Myra Polanco is desirous of visiting her father with her to children

Arleny Gomez and Ottoniel Perez: and the consent of Robert Erazer, the US. Attorney

I having been given orally to Robert J. DeGroot for this application and fbr good cause appearing:

and

IT ELRT1-IER appearinu that Pretrial Serx ices having expressed n abjection ... 1115 an this da of /

ORDERED that the passports of Myra Polanco. a\rlen Gomez and Oiionel Pere/

shall he renirned to Myra. Polanco and the conditions of the Defendrit Juan Gomezs. hail he
[hereby consent to the form and entry

of the within Order.

ROBLRFFRA!FR LS ALTORNI\

C II E. S L ER

lN.ilEf) STAlED DIS I RICT CO RT RIDGE
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16861]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


National Science Board; Committee on Strategy and Budget; 
Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice

    The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy and Budget, 
pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR Part 614), the National Science 
Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in 
the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the 
scheduling of meetings for the transaction of National Science Board 
business and other matters specified, as follows:

Date and Time:  Friday, July 24, 2009 at 1 p.m.

Subject Matter: Discussion of future NSF budgets.

Status: Closed.
    This meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the 
National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Please refer to the National Science Board 
Web site (http://www.nsf.gov/nsb) for information or schedule updates, 
or contact: Jennie Moehlmann, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-7000.

Ann Ferrante,
Writer-Editor.
[FR Doc. E9-16861 Filed 7-13-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P