alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21.1

                              List of Subsidiaries
                              --------------------

                                         State of Incorporation/
        Subsidiary                            Formation                  D/B/A
        -----------                     -----------------------        --------

1. PBM Technology, Inc.                         Delaware

2. Interchange PMP, Inc.                        Oklahoma

3. Pharmacy Associates, Inc.                    Arkansas

4. Specialty Pharmacy Care, Inc.                New York

5. Centrus Corporation                          Delaware

6. NMHCRX Contracts, Inc.                       Delaware

7. NMHC Funding, LLC                            Delaware

8. National Medical Health Card IPA, Inc.       New York         NMHCRX IPA

9. NMHCRX, Inc.                                 Delaware

10. NMHCRX Mail Order, Inc.                     Delaware         NMHC Mail

11. Integrail Inc.                              Delaware         NMHC Integrail

12. Ascend Specialty Pharmacy Services, Inc.    Delaware

13. Portland Professional Pharmacy              Maine            NMHC Ascend

14. Portland Professional Pharmacy Associates   Maine            NMHC Ascend

15. Inteq PBM, L.P.                             Texas

16. Inteq Corp.                                 Delaware

17. Inteq TX Corp.                              Texas

18. Pharmaceutical Care Network                 California        PCN

19. PCN DE Corp.                                Delaware
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Crim. No. 11-163 (FSH)

v. : O R D E R

ELVIN CASTILLO :

Defendant. :

This matter having come before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge filed in this matter, which was submitted as a result of this Court having

referred this cause to the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting a plea proceeding under

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11; and the defendant having consented to the Magistrate Judge conducting the

guilty plea proceeding; and the Court having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, as well as

the transcript of the proceedings on March 21, 2011 and there being no objection to the Report and

Recommendation timely filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b); and the Court finding the Report and

Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law; and the Court hereby finding that

the Report and Recommendation should be approved and adopted and the defendant’s guilty plea

accepted,

IT IS ON THIS 14 day of April, 2011, th

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is

approved and adopted; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant’s guilty plea is accepted and a judgment

of guilt to Count One of the Information shall be entered. 

 s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:11-cr-00163-FSH Document 32 Filed 04/14/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 54
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 33999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16599]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of a U.S. Government-Owned 
Patent

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7 
(a)(I)(i), announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, 
royalty-bearing, revocable license to U.S. Patent No. 6,579,233 
entitled ``System and Method for Evaluating Task Effectiveness Based on 
Sleep Patterns,'' issued June 17, 2003 to Fatigue Science, Inc. with 
its principal place of business at 700 Bishop Street, Suite 2000, 
Honolulu, HI 96813.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 
Attn: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, 
Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, 
Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664. For patent 
issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808, both at 
telefax (301) 619-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of 
this license can file written objections along with supporting 
evidence, if any, 15 days from the date of this publication. Written 
objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see 
ADDRESSES).

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
 [FR Doc. E9-16599 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
Exhibit 10.75


AUTOBYTEL INC.






AMENDMENT NO. 1

 TO


SEVERANCE AGREEMENT







This Amendment No. 1 to Severance Agreement ("Amendment") is entered into effective as of September 19, 2012 ("Effective Date") between Autobytel Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Autobytel" or "Company") and John Steerman ("Employee").


Background


Autobytel and Employee have previously entered into a Severance Agreement dated as of October 1, 2009 ("Severance Agreement").  As a result of the resignation of the Company's Executive Vice President, Product, Marketing and Analytics, Employee has undertaken additional management duties and responsibilities.  In light of Employee's additional duties and responsibilities, the parties wish to amend the Severance Agreement as set forth below to increase Employee's severance period to twelve months.







In order to implement the foregoing and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency, of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:







1.            Increased Severance Period.  Section 2(a) of the Severance Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:







(a)            In the event of (i) Termination Without Cause by the Company, or (ii) the termination of Employee's employment with the Company by Employee for Good Reason within 30 days of the earlier of (i) the expiration of the Company's 30-day right to cure as set forth in the definition of Good Reason, or (ii) the Company's notice to Employee that it will not cure the event giving rise to such termination for Good Reason, Employee shall receive upon such termination (A) a lump sum amount equal to twelve months ("Severance Period") of the Employee's annual base salary (determined as the Employee's highest annual base salary paid to Employee while employed by the Company; with the annual base salary not including bonus payments); (B) subject to Section 2(b) below, continuation of all Benefits for Employee and, if applicable, Employee's eligible dependents during the Severance Period at the time they would have been provided or paid had the Employee remained an employee of Company during the Severance Period and at the levels provided prior to the event giving rise to a termination; (C) any amounts due and owing to Employee as of the termination date with respect to any base salary, bonus or commissions; and (D) any other payments required by applicable law (including payments with respect to accrued and unused vacation, personal, sick and other days), subject, in each case, to withholding for applicable taxes.


2.            No Other Changes. Except as set forth above, all other terms and conditions of the Severance Agreement remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Employee have executed and entered into this Amendment effective as of the date first shown above. 


AUTOBYTEL INC.







By:            /s/ Glenn E. Fuller


Glenn E. Fuller


Executive Vice President, Chief Legal and Administrative Office and Secretary












EMPLOYEE












                          /s/ John Steerman  


John Steerman












2
Filed 11/1/13 P. v. Keene CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSHUA JUSTIN KEENE,

Defendant and Appellant.

F065512

(Super. Ct. No. RF6312A)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John D. 

Oglesby, Judge.

Alison E. Kaylor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.
2

Appellant, Joshua Justin Keene, pled no contest to petty theft with a prior (Pen. 

Code, § 666). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 On September 4, 2011, Cindy McWhorter, a manager at a Wal-Mart store in 

Ridgecrest, saw Keene take an iPhone 3G from a store display counter.

On September 5, 2011, McWhorter called the police after seeing Keene in the 

store again. Two officers soon arrived at the store and contacted Keene as he sat on a 

bench. Keene told the officers he was there to return a phone that was not working 

properly. An officer ran a check on Keene and discovered Keene was on parole for 

burglary. After one of the officers reviewed the surveillance video from the previous 

day, he informed Keene that he believed Keene was the same subject who took an iPhone

from the display counter because Keene was wearing the same clothes. When the 

officers showed Keene the video, Keene stated he did not remember taking the phone but 

he may have done so by accident.

On June 11, 2012, the district attorney filed an information charging Keene with 

petty theft with a prior (count 1) and three prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code, § 

667.5, subd. (b)). 

On June 19, 2012, Keene entered his plea to the petty theft with a prior conviction 

in exchange for a stipulated low term of 16 months and the dismissal of the three prior 

prison term enhancements. 

On July 17, 2012, after Keene waived presentence custody credit for time he 

served on a related parole violation, the court denied Keene probation and sentenced him 

to a 16-month term in local custody. 

Keene’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with 

citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the 
3

record. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Keene has not responded to this court’s 

invitation to submit additional briefing.

Following an independent review of the record we find that no reasonably 

arguable factual or legal issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
 TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Weikang Bio-Technology
Group Co., Inc. (the "Company") for the three and nine months ended September
30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Yanhua Liu, Chief Financial Officer, certify
that:
 
 *   the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 *   information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 /s/ Yanhua
Liu
 Yanhua
Liu
 Chief
Financial Officer
 
 November 18, 2009
 
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
GERRARD D. JONES
,
Petitioner,

v.

TORREY M. JOHNSON; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
, Respondent s

. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AN D DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4831

Opinion filed September 16, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction

. Gerrard D. Jones, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Brett Coleman, Assistant A ttorney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent s

.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits

.
LEWIS, WETHERELL, and JAY, JJ.
, CONCUR.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August      14 , 2009 | By:    | /s/ Wu,      Man-Shing                                       |   |
|-----------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                  |   | Wu,      Man-Shing                                           |   |
|                  |   | Chief      Executive OfficerPrincipal      Executive Officer |   |

----
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT**

       Dann H. Bowman and Sandra F. Pender hereby certify as follows:

     1.     They are the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Chino Commercial Bancorp.

     2.     The Form 10-Q of Chino Commercial Bancorp for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 complies with the requirements pf Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78(m) or 78(d)) and the information contained in the report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Chino Commercial Bancorp.

Date: November 7, 2008

 By: /s/ Dann H. Bowman
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

April 14, 2016

ERRATUM

______________________ 

Appeal No. 2015-1079

______________________ 

REMBRANDT VISION TECHNOLOGIES, L.P.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

Decided: April 7, 2016

Precedential Opinion

______________________ 

Please make the following change: 

On page 8, line 12 of the opinion, delete “[A8].”
information is left out of the petition and accompanying documentation, 

we have no way of properly evaluating the petition."). Accordingly, we 

deny this petition. 

It is so ORDERED. 

Gibbons 

Piek. 

Pickering 

J. 

cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge 

Theresa Miller 

Hawkins Folsom & Muir 

Loay Turner 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

(0) [947A
DB1/66971143.1 

James P. Walsh, Jr. 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

502 Carnegie Center 

Princeton, NJ 08540-6289 

Tel.: (609) 919.6600 

Fax: (609) 919.6701 

Troy S. Brown 

Thomas B. Kenworthy 

 (Pro Hac Vice Application To Be Filed) 

Kenneth L. Racowski 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1701 Market Street Attorneys for Defendants

Philadelphia, PA 19103 Zimmer, Inc., Zimmer US, 

215.963.5000 Inc., Zimmer Spine, Inc., and 

 Christopher Giebelhaus 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., a 

subsidiary of STRYKER CORPORATION, 

a New Jersey Corporation. 

Plaintiff 

v. 

ZIMMER, INC., a Delaware corporation; 

ZIMMER US, INC., a Delaware corporation; 

ZIMMER SPINE, INC., a Delaware 

corporation; PAUL GRAVELINE, an 

individual; CHRISTOPHER 

GIEBELHAUS, an individual; 

CHRISTOPHER LOUGHRAN, an 

individual; RYAN LIVELY, an individual; 

RYAN HERMANSKY, an individual; ZACH 

HILTON, an individual; THOMAS

FALLON, an individual; RUBEN 

BURCIAGA, an individual; ALEX 

POULEMANOS, an individual; and BRIAN 

ROWAN, an individual. 

Defendants 

CIVIL ACTION 

NO.: 11-1857 (KSH) 

CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’ 

EMERGENCY MOTION TO 

VACATE OR DISSOLVE THE 

INJUNCTION AND RESTRAINT 

OF CONDUCT SET FORTH IN 

PARAGRAPH F OF THE 

COURT’S APRIL 1, 2011 ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE WITH 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINTS 

ORAL ARGUMENT 

REQUESTED

Case 2:11-cv-01857-KSH -PS Document 9 Filed 04/04/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 434
DB1/66971143.1 

 Defendants Zimmer, Inc., Zimmer US, Inc., Zimmer Spine, Inc. and Christopher 

Giebelhaus (collectively, “Moving Defendants”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, 

respectfully move this Court to vacate or dissolve the injunction and restraint on the conduct set 

forth in Paragraph F of the Court’s April 1, 2011 Order to Show Cause with Temporary 

Restraints (the “TRO”). For the reasons more fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum 

of law and as supported by the declaration attached thereto, Moving Defendants respectfully 

request that this Court grant their Emergency Motion to Vacate or Dissolve the Injunction and 

Restraint of the Conduct Set Forth in Paragraph F of the Court’s April 1, 2011 Order to Show 

Cause with Temporary Restraints. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

Date: April 4, 2011 /s/ James P. Walsh, Jr._______________________ 

James P. Walsh, Jr. 

502 Carnegie Center 

Princeton, NJ 08540-6289 

Tel.: (609) 919.6600 

Fax: (609) 919.6701 

Troy S. Brown 

Thomas B. Kenworthy 

 (Pro Hac Vice Application To Be Filed) 

Kenneth L. Racowski 

1701 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

215.963.5000 

Attorneys for Defendants 

 Zimmer, Inc., Zimmer US, 

Inc., Zimmer Spine, Inc., and 

Christopher Giebelhaus

Case 2:11-cv-01857-KSH -PS Document 9 Filed 04/04/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 435
#### Welch *v.*Singleton.

Bumpkin, J. — 1. Although the plaintiff’s petition prayed for process returnable to the January term of the city court, and was backed, numbered and docketed accordingly, yet as the process itself and the copy process served upon the defendant required him to appear and answer at the next ensuing March term, the case could not, as to him, be treated as returnable to the January term.

2. It appearing that the case was improperly assigned for trial as a case of the January term, and that consequently it was afterwards called for trial out of its proper order and a judgment rendered against the defendant, although he had in due time filed an issuable defense, there was no error, at the next term, in setting the judgment aside and ordering the case to be reinstated, it appearing that the defendant had not been negligent in failing to ascertain earlier the fact that the judgment had been entered.

November 12,1894.

By two Justices.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*520Motion to set aside judgment. Before Judge Westmoreland. City court of Atlanta. January term, 1894.

The suit was filed on December 6,1892. Process was prayed, requiring defendant to appear “at the next city court of Atlanta.” The declaration was backed as a suit returnable to the January term, 1893. The process was-dated February 6, 1893, and summoned defendant to-appear at the March term, 1893. Service was made on February 18, 1893. On March 21, 1893, defendant demurred in writing and filed a written plea. On December 12, 1893, a verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of plaintiff. The court adjourned for the term on December 23. On December 30, a rule to show cause why the judgment should not be set aside was granted. On the hearing it was admitted that in the regular call of the docket the March term, 1893, had not been reached. The court granted the motion to set aside the judgment, and ordered the case reinstated and docketed in its proper place in the March term, 1893, and that it stand for trial as of that term.

Culberson & Hunt and C. B. Reynolds, for plaintiff.

Haralson & Gowdy, for defendant.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Krista Lynne Gardner, Independent 

Executrix of the Estate of Larry Ray Tiner, 

Appellant

No. 06-14-00062-CV v.

Penny Heddin Tiner, Appellee

Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District 

Court of Wood County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

2006-404). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Krista Lynne Gardner, Independent Executrix of the 

Estate of Larry Ray Tiner, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 17, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Exhibit 4.2
  
    
 
   
  President, CEO and COB
    
    
    
    CFO




---



##### 



TEN COM  as tenants in common
    
    UNIF GIFT MIN ACT -
    
    Custodian(Cust)     (Minor)under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act(State)TEN ENT  as tenants by the entireties
    
    UNIF TRF MIN ACT 
    
    Custodian (until age)(Cust)     (Minor)under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act(State)
 
   KEEP THIS CERTIFICATE IN A SAFE PLACE. IF IT IS LOST, STOLEN, MUTILATED OR DESTROYED, THE COMPANY
WILL REQUIRE A BOND OF INDEMNITY AS A CONDITION TO THE ISSUANCE OF A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE.
 
 
 
 Notice:
    
    Signature must conform in all respects to the name of
Registered Holder as specified on the face of this Warrant
Certificate in every particular, without alteration or any
change whatsoever, and the signature must be guaranteed in
the usual manner.