alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### *In re*Ross, Judge.

The statute (Code, §4252), allowing, in some instances, sixty days' from the date of the decision complained of within which to tender a bill of exceptions, applies only to decisions made in term time, and has no application to the refusal of a new trial on a motion-made in term and by order of the court set down for determination at chambers during vacation. A bill of exceptions to such refusal must be tendered within thirty days after the decision, where no-legal excuse appears for delay.

October 8,1894.

Application for *mandamus nisi.*

Freeman & Griswold, for applicant.

*Mandamus nisi denied.*
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 3101
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 3102
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 3103
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 3104
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 3105
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 3106
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 3107
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 3108
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 3109
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 3110
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 3111
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 3112
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 3113
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 3114
Case 2:11-cv-02479-JLL-MAH Document 80-1 Filed 01/17/12 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 3115
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

21. Persons at work in nonagricultural industries by class of worker and usual full- or part-time status

(Numbers in thousands)

Industry and class of worker

2006

Total

at

work

Worked 1 to 34 hours

Worked

35 hours

or more

Average hours

Total

For

economic

reasons

For noneconomic

reasons

Total

at

work

Persons who

usually work

full time

Usually

work

full

time

Usually

work

part

time

 Total, 16 years and over ......................................................... 136,571 31,861 4,071 8,553 19,237 104,710 39.2 42.8

Wage and salary workers ......................................................... 127,423 28,832 3,585 7,908 17,339 98,590 39.2 42.6

 Mining ..................................................................................... 649 54 6 32 16 595 49.6 50.4

 Construction ........................................................................... 9,552 1,505 443 626 436 8,048 40.8 42.1

 Manufacturing ......................................................................... 15,605 1,683 259 920 504 13,922 42.4 43.2

 Durable goods ...................................................................... 10,018 1,024 130 611 283 8,993 42.6 43.3

 Nondurable goods ................................................................ 5,587 659 129 309 221 4,928 42.1 43.1

 Wholesale and retail trade ...................................................... 19,570 5,156 644 862 3,650 14,414 38.3 43.0

 Transportation and utilities ..................................................... 6,732 1,008 164 378 466 5,723 42.4 44.3

 Information .............................................................................. 3,355 663 59 222 381 2,692 39.7 42.7

 Financial activities .................................................................. 9,346 1,623 120 638 865 7,722 40.4 42.6

 Professional and business services ....................................... 12,498 2,437 350 785 1,303 10,061 40.2 43.0

 Education and health services ................................................ 26,901 7,416 603 2,014 4,800 19,484 37.5 41.6

 Leisure and hospitality ............................................................ 11,102 4,472 679 456 3,337 6,630 34.6 42.3

 Other services ........................................................................ 5,807 1,816 224 300 1,291 3,992 36.9 43.0

 Other services, except private households ........................... 5,030 1,388 151 253 984 3,642 38.1 43.3

 Private households ............................................................... 777 428 73 47 307 349 29.4 40.3

 Public administration .............................................................. 6,306 999 33 675 291 5,307 40.9 42.0

Self-employed workers ............................................................. 9,061 2,982 483 638 1,862 6,079 38.4 44.7

Unpaid family workers .............................................................. 87 46 4 7 36 41 32.7 41.6

 NOTE: Beginning in January 2006, data reflect revised population controls used in the household survey.

244
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 27, 2009

p0120 

# Order

January 27, 2009

137613

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137613 COA: 277777 Van Buren CC: 06-015376-FC TIMOTHY EUGENE ANDREWS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 25, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Amended Long-Term Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.2 
 First Amendment to 
 Continental Resources, Inc. 

2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan 
 As Amended and Restated as of April 3, 2006 
 WHEREAS,
Continental Resources, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation (the “Company”), has heretofore adopted the Continental Resources, Inc. 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as Amended and Restated as of April 3, 2006 (the “Plan”); and

 WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects; 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows: 

 

	 	1.	The following new paragraph shall be added to the end of Section 2.7 of the Plan: 


“Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to an Award granted on or after the date the Board adopts the First
Amendment to the Plan (the “Adoption Date”), a transaction otherwise described in clause (i) of the preceding sentence shall not include any such transaction in which shares are issued, sold or transferred to an Excluded
Person. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term “Excluded Person” means: (A) Harold G. Hamm (“Hamm”); (B) Hamm’s spouse; (C) any of Hamm’s lineal descendants; (D) Hamm’s guardian
or other legal representative or Hamm’s estate; (E) any trust of which at least one of the trustees is Hamm, or the principal beneficiaries of which are any one or more of the persons or entities described in clauses (A) through
(D) above; (F) any person or entity which is controlled by any one or more of the persons or entities described in clauses (A) through (E) above; and (G) any group (within the meaning of the Exchange Act and the rules of the
Securities and Exchange Commission thereunder as in effect on the Adoption Date) that includes one or more of the persons or entities described in clauses (A) through (F) above, provided that such persons and entities described in clauses
(A) through (F) above control more than 50% of the voting power of such group.” 
  

	 	2.	As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
#### Southeast Mechanical Corp., Respondent, v Board of Education of Carmel Central School District, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 481]

In November 2003 the plaintiff (hereinafter the contractor) contracted with the defendant to provide heating, ventilation, and air conditioning work in several of the defendant’s buildings. The contract included an alternate dispute mechanism by which the contractor was required to notify the project’s architect, in writing, of any claim within 21 days after it first recognized, or reasonably should have recognized, the condition giving rise to the claim, and provided that compliance with this provision was a condition precedent to litigation being commenced.

An alternate dispute resolution mechanism that authorizes, as in the instant case, claims to be decided by the project’s architect, is generally enforceable so long as there is a judicial review mechanism available *(see Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth.,*82 NY2d 47, 50 [1993]). However, we reject the defendant’s contention that, on this record, it has been conclusively established that the complaint should be dismissed due to the contractor’s alleged failure to provide timely notice of its claim in accordance with the requirements of the contract *(see Trataros Constr., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth.,*34 AD3d 451, 453 [2006]; *Abax, Inc. v Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc.,*8 AD3d 92, 93 [2004]; *National States Elec. Corp. v City of New York, 225*AD2d 745, 748 [1996]; *Safway Steel Prods. v Craft Architectural Metals Corp.,*183 AD2d 452 [1992]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2
 BROOKSIDE TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS CORP
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a) / 15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Brookside Technology Holdings
Corp;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15e for the small business issuer) and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidating subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small
business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of
directors (or persons performing equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting.
  By:
    
    /s/ Bryan McGuireName:
    
    Bryan McGuireTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
VIA FACSIMILE (973-776-7865)

Honorable Cathy L. Waldor, U.S.M.J.

United States District Court, District of New Jersey

Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse

50 Walnut Street

Newark, New Jersey 07101

RE: Suzanne Caruso v. Joseph Occhiogrosso, et al.

No,: 2:1l-cv-01951

Dear Judge Waldor:

As you know, Harter Secrest & Emery LLP is co-counsel to Plaintiff Suzanne Caruso in

the above-referenced action. Pursuant to the Court’s text order entered on January 9, 2015, the deadline for fact discovery is currently April 30, 2015. With the assistance of Your Honor, the parties have been working amicably in an attempt to resolve several discovery disputes. Because certain issues remain open and because the parties have not yet been able to conduct any

/depositions, we her that the deadline for the close of fact disc etened

1 nin 9Q)ys. Defendant Occhiogrosso’s counsel, Joseph Haftek, Esq., has consented to this

request.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly, -K Thc ti

ulAfkUfr- 12_0 HAUFFR, SKUREST & EME8Y LUP

OJ)ER

s/Cathy L. Wald.or John G. Horn

LWdor,U.S,tJ. Partner

DIRECT DIAL: 716-844-3728

E-MAIL: JKORNHSELAW.C0M

JGH/tlk

cc: Joseph Deer. Esq. (via email)

Joseph R. Haftek, Jr., Esq. (via email)

TWELVE FOUNTA$N PLAZA, 5UTE 400 BUFFALO. NY 142022293 FHONC 7 6853, 6 6 AX 7 6853. 6 7

ROCHESTER. NY • BUFFALO, NY • ALBANY NY • CORNING. NY • NEW YORK NY
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5021

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pepperoncini prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid in concentrations less 

than .5%. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 7, 2004

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain pepperoncini 

prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic 

acid in concentrations less than .5%.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PEPPERONCINI PREPARED OR PRE4 SERVED OTHERWISE THAN BY VINEGAR OR 

5 ACETIC ACID IN CONCENTRATIONS LESS 

6 THAN .5%. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

8 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 
2

•HR 5021 IH 

1 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

2 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.20.07 Pepperoncini, prepared or 

preserved otherwise than by 

vinegar or acetic acid in concentrations less than .5% 

(provided for in subheading 

2005.90.97) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

4 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

5 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

6 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
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





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Splinternet Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned
certifies, 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 the undersigned’s
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 Company.





Dated:   
      February 18, 2010
                
                By:
                /s/ James C. AckerlyJames
      C. Ackerly, Chief Executive Officerand
      President (Principal Executive
Officer)
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

21. Persons at work in nonagricultural industries by class of worker and usual full- or part-time status

(Numbers in thousands)

Industry and class of worker

1998

Total

at

work

Worked 1 to 34 hours

Worked

35 hours

or more

Average hours

Total

For

economic

reasons

For noneconomic

reasons

Total

at

work

Persons who

usually work

full time

Usually

work

full

time

Usually

work

part

time

 Total 16 years and over .......................................................... 122,660 32,146 3,501 10,691 17,954 90,514 39.2 43.1

Wage and salary workers ......................................................... 114,157 29,314 3,123 10,049 16,142 84,843 39.2 42.9

 Mining ..................................................................................... 575 55 7 35 14 519 47.6 48.3

 Construction ........................................................................... 6,748 1,339 289 715 335 5,409 40.8 42.3

 Manufacturing ......................................................................... 19,667 2,765 300 1,735 729 16,902 42.2 43.2

 Durable goods ...................................................................... 11,943 1,551 132 1,082 337 10,392 42.7 43.4

 Nondurable goods ................................................................ 7,724 1,214 168 653 392 6,510 41.6 42.9

 Transportation and public utilities ........................................... 8,477 1,469 176 750 543 7,008 42.3 44.0

 Wholesale and retail trade ...................................................... 24,679 8,493 1,051 1,405 6,038 16,186 37.1 43.5

 Finance, insurance, and real estate ....................................... 7,729 1,642 77 813 753 6,087 40.0 42.2

 Service industries ................................................................... 40,616 12,378 1,183 3,735 7,460 28,238 37.7 42.4

 Private households ............................................................... 924 530 85 47 398 395 29.5 42.8

 All other industries ................................................................ 39,691 11,848 1,097 3,688 7,063 27,843 37.9 42.3

 Public administration .............................................................. 5,666 1,172 40 862 271 4,494 40.5 41.7

Self-employed workers ............................................................. 8,400 2,774 374 637 1,763 5,626 39.6 46.4

Unpaid family workers .............................................................. 103 58 4 5 48 45 34.0 46.6

 NOTE: Beginning in January 1998, data reflect new composite estimation procedures and revised population controls used in the household survey.

197
#### VON MAILATH et ux. v. ORDER OF DAUGHTERS OF DIVINE REDEEMER.

Civ. A. No. 8542.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 27, 1950.

Thomas W. Pomeroy, Jr., Kirkpatrick, Pomeroy, Lockhart & Johnson, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

J. Paul Farrell, William H. Eckert, ■Smith, Buchanan & Ingersoll, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

BURNS, District Judge.

Both parties agree that this court has discretion to require plaintiff to file a reply to the answer of defendant. The issue is whether the circumstances -alleged in the answer of defendant are such as to warrant the exercise of discretion.

 It is my belief that, in so far as possible, the development of facts in pretrial proceedings should be accomplished under the provisions of the rules providing for discovery, depositions, interrogatories and the like. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 26 et seq., 28 U.S.C.A. Even if plaintiff were required to file a reply in the instant case, it may well be doubted whether such reply would eliminate the necessity of, or adequately substitute for, other discovery proceedings.

It may also be noted that sparing use of the discretion to require additional pleadings is likely to induce earlier use of discovery -proceedings and the more efficient disposal of cases.

And now, September 27, 19S0, the motion to require plaintiff to reply to the answer of defendant is denied.
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 45
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 2 of 14 PageID: 46
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 3 of 14 PageID: 47
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 4 of 14 PageID: 48
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 5 of 14 PageID: 49
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 6 of 14 PageID: 50
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 7 of 14 PageID: 51
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 8 of 14 PageID: 52
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 9 of 14 PageID: 53
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 10 of 14 PageID: 54
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 55
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 12 of 14 PageID: 56
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 57
Case 2:11-cv-02887-WJM-MF Document 9 Filed 07/14/11 Page 14 of 14 PageID: 58
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE

STATE OF DELAWARE )

)

v. ) I.D. No. 0405014707

)

RENALDO JOHNSON

, )

)

Defendant. )

Submitted: August 20 , 2021

Decided: October 26

, 2021

Upon Consideration of the Defendant ’s Motion to Discharge Probation

- DENIED

.

Attorneys and Law Firms

Adam Gelof , Esquire, Deputy Attorneys General, Department of Justice, Georgetown, Delaware,

Attorney for State.

Stephen E. Smith , Esquire, Office of Defense Service

, Georgetown, Delaware, Attorney for

Defendant Renaldo Thomas

.

Mark H. Conner, Judge

### - 2

- ORDER

This 26 th day of October, 2021, the Defendant’s Motion to Discharge Probation is

DENIED . After a thorough review of file, the Court started with the p lea a greement the Defendant

made with the State to resolve this case. Pursuant to the plea agreement the Defendan t stipulated

that 15 years of probation “is warranted to reduce the likelihood of re

- offense and for ‘public

safety’.” Additionally, t he Court must take into consideration that the Defendant’s last experience

on probation was not successful with allegatio ns of marijuana use, attendance issues at sex

offender treatment, internet use and having pornographic material on his phone. This violation

occurred within two years of his release from prison.

Currently, the Defendant has been in the community approxim ately 3 years and five

months without issue which the Court is happy to see . However, based on the nature of the offense,

the stipulation to the length of probation and the previous violation, the Court must conclude that

probation should not be terminate d at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.



### /s/ 

# Mark H. Conner

Mark H. Conner

Judge

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Adam Gelof , Deputy Attorney General

Stephen E. Smith , Esquire

Victoria Macklin, Probation & Parole

Renaldo Johnson