alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:11-cv-03495-DMC Document 4 Filed 09/01/11 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 21
Case 2:11-cv-03495-DMC Document 4 Filed 09/01/11 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 22
Case 2:11-cv-03495-DMC Document 4 Filed 09/01/11 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 23
Case 2:11-cv-03495-DMC Document 4 Filed 09/01/11 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 24
Case 2:11-cv-03495-DMC Document 4 Filed 09/01/11 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 25
Case 2:11-cv-03495-DMC Document 4 Filed 09/01/11 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 26
EXHIBIT 32.0

                        SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF THE
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

      Each of Edward J. Molnar,  Chief Executive  Officer and Brendan J. McGill,
Senior  Vice  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of  Harleysville  Savings
Financial Corporation (the "Company"),  hereby certify,  pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)   The Annual  Report on Form 10-K of the  Company  for the fiscal year ended
      September 30, 2005 (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(a) 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:  December 21, 2005                  By:  /s/ Edward J. Molnar
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Edward J. Molnar
                                               Chief Executive Officer

Date:  December 21, 2005                  By:  /s/ Brendan J. McGill
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Brendan J. McGill
                                               Senior Vice President and Chief
                                                 Financial Officer

Note:   A signed original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 of
        the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  has  been  provided  to  Harleysville  Savings
        Financial  Corporation  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and Exchange
        Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 4.1




 





 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


March 7, 2013


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, New Jersey Municipal Portfolio
of Closed-End Funds Trust, Series 2


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, New Jersey Municipal Portfolio of Closed-End Funds Trust, Series 2 set forth above
(the “Trust”). We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices
indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on March 7, 2013, in accordance with the valuation
method set forth in the Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party
performing the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-186373) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit
thereto.


 


	Very truly yours,
	 
	/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO
	Gerardo Cipriano
	Vice President
#### JONES v. DAVEGA STORES CORPORATION et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

June 22, 1950.

See 186 F.2d 707.

L. Stewart Gatter, New York City, for plaintiff.

Archer Scherl, New York City, for Motorola, Inc.

McGOHEY, District Judge.

The action, brought in this court by reason of diversity, seeks damages and injunc-tive relief because of alleged trade-mark infringement 'by Motorola, Inc., an Illinois corporation. This foreign defendant moves, under Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., (a) to quash service of summons and process on the ground that no proper service was made on it; and (b) to dismiss the action as to it, on the ground that it is a foreign corporation, does not do business in the Southern District of New York and is not and was not subject to service of process here.

Plaintiff claims to have properly served the foreign defendant, by serving an employee of Motorola-New York, Inc., a co-defendant, claiming that the latter is in fact an agent of the foreign defendant. The proofs before me completely contradict that claim. They show that Motorola-New York, Inc., wholly owned by one Nathan Cooper, is a New York corporation which is only one of many independent distributors of the products of Motorola, Inc.; that there is no interlocking directorate between Motorola-New York, Inc. and Motorola, Inc.; and that the latter and its officers, directors and employees have no financial or stock interest in the former. Moreover, the proof shows that the process which it is claimed reached the foreign corporation *435was served merely on an employee of the domestic corporation.

Accordingly, the motion is granted. The plaintiff’s request for reference to a Master is denied because on the showing before me it would only unfairly harass Motorola-New York, Inc., which the plaintiff seeks to have subjected to investigation. The cases cited by the plaintiff on this point are distinguishable and do not require a different result.

Submit order.
EX-10.11



 EXHIBIT 10.11 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 

EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on December 11, 2012, effective December 31, 2012, by and between Wireless Ronin
Technologies, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with a place of business at Baker Technology Plaza, 5929 Baker Road, Suite 475, Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Company”), and Scott W. Koller, a resident of the state of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as “Executive”). This Agreement amends the Executive Employment Agreement dated December 28, 2010, by and between
the Company and Executive (the “Original Agreement”) as follows: 
  

	 	(1)	The last paragraph of Section 6.03 is amended and restated as follows: 

 Notwithstanding the foregoing, all pay and benefits to Executive upon termination of employment will be conditioned on Executive signing a release of claims in a form similar to that contained in Article
10 of the Agreement. Payment will commence on the sixtieth (60th) day following termination of employment provided that the release agreement has become irrevocable. For purposes of the Agreement, termination of employment means separation from
service as defined in Section 409A of the Code. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the following parties have executed the above
instrument the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	WIRELESS RONIN TECHNOLOGY, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Stephen F. Birke
		 	Stephen F. Birke
		 	Chairman
	
	EXECUTIVE
		
	By	 	/s/ Scott W. Koller
		 	Scott W. Koller
Order entered January 4, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01470-CV

HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF RICHARDSON, LLC, Appellant

V.

JOSEPH RICH, AS NEXT FRIEND FOR JESSE MAE RICH, Appellee

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-00480

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 2, 2019 unopposed motion for an extension of 

time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to January 24, 2019.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
#### 151 East 26th Street Associates, Respondent, v QBE Insurance Company, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 24]

*453Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered August 9, 2005, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action alleging wrongful refusal by defendant to pay a claim for the loss of property insured by it under a policy issued to plaintiff, defendant has waived disclaimer predicated on untimely notice of claim. Defendant never issued a written disclaimer of coverage citing the failure of plaintiff to give “prompt” notice in accordance with the requirement of the policy, and, indeed, did not raise the lack-of-prompt-notice defense until more than three years after receiving plaintiff’s notice of claim *(see Hotel des Artistes, Inc. v General Acc. Ins. Co. of Am.,*9 AD3d 181, 193 [2004], *appeal dismissed*4 NY3d 739 [2004]). In any case, under the unusual circumstances presented, in which serious structural infirmity in plaintiffs apartment building necessitated emergent and extensive shoring to stabilize the building and assure the safety of its tenants, many of whom refused to evacuate their apartments, plaintiffs notice of claim, sent to defendant shortly after the emergency shoring had been completed but before substantial long-term remedial measures had been undertaken, has not been shown to be untimely as a matter of law. Nor has defendant made a persuasive showing in support of the alternative grounds advanced by it for summary judgment predicated upon the contention that it was denied a meaningful opportunity to inspect the premises so as to ascertain for itself the cause and extent of the loss at issue. Indeed, it appears from the record that such an opportunity was in fact provided.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Marlow, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
#### ZHONG WANG; Zhong Wu; Shuai Cheng Wang, Petitioners v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-60243

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 12, 2012.

A. Don Forester, Esq., Forester Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Petitioners.

Karen Y. Stewart, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Zhong Wang, for himself and on behalf of his wife and their son, has filed a petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Wang contends that he and his family will be persecuted on account of his political opinion if removed to China.

The BIA concluded that Wang’s asylum application was untimely. We lack jurisdiction to review this conclusion. *See Zhu v. Gonzales,*493 F.3d 588, 595-96 (5th Cir.2007). We dismiss the petition for review of the denial of asylum. *See id.*at 602.

To obtain withholding of removal, Wang was required to show a clear probability of persecution in China based at least in part on his political opinion. *Shaikh v. Holder,*588 F.3d 861, 864 (5th Cir.2009); *Kane v. Holder,*581 F.3d 231, 238 (5th Cir.2009). He has failed to show any past persecution, and his speculative contentions about future persecution do not compel a finding that it is more likely than not that he or his family would be persecuted if removed. *See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS,*78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir.1996).

Moreover, Wang offers at best only allegations “of a generalized ‘political’ motive” for any harassment. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 482, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). He describes his own political views only vaguely as democratic opposition to corruption, and he presents no evidence to compel a finding that his alleged persecutors knew or cared about any particular political opinion of his. *See Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft,*303 F.3d 341, 351 (5th Cir.2002). Rather, the record and pleadings indicate that the alleged persecutors’ motives were economic, and Wang points to no evidence that would compel the conclusion that he faces likely persecution “to any extent on account of or motivated by [his] political opinion.” *Id.*

Wang’s spouse and child cannot be derivative beneficiaries for withholding of removal, and they have not made the requisite individualized showing of entitlement to withholding. *See Arif v. Mukasey,*509 F.3d 677, 681-82 (5th Cir.2007). Wang has waived, by lack of briefing, any appeal of denial of relief under the Convention *309Against Torture. *See Thuri v. Ashcroft,*380 F.3d 788, 793 (5th Cir.2004).

The petition for review of the asylum order is DISMISSED; the petition for review concerning all other relief is DENIED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Jeffery L. Bateman, President, Treasurer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Rocky Mountain Plantings, 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-Q, of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2011 (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 78 o(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: May 10, 2011 /s/ Jeffery L. Bateman Jeffery L. BatemanPresident and Chief Executive Officer Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been furnished to Rocky Mountain Plantings, Inc. and will be retained by Rocky Mountain Plantings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 3:11-cv-02509-MAS-LHG   Document 83-1   Filed 03/11/13   Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1188

Case 3:11-cv-02509-MAS-LHG   Document 83-1   Filed 03/11/13   Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1189
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-11008

Conference Calendar

 

KENNETH McGREGOR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WHITE, Warden; REAGEN, Assistant Warden; CHANCE,

Major; D. POLLOCK, Captain; CAPTAIN SAVERS; MRS.

JOHNSON, Chief of Classification; J. RODRIGUEZ, 

Correctional Officer III; STILES, Correctional 

Officer III,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:96-CV-153

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

August 24, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth McGregor (# 564450), a state prisoner, has appealed

the magistrate judge’s order granting the defendants’ motion for

judgment as a matter of law. The standard of review is de novo. 

Allen v. Pennsylvania Engineering Corp., 102 F.3d 194, 196 (5th

Cir. 1996).

Prison officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to

protect inmates “from violence at the hands of other prisoners.” 
No. 98-11008

-2-

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (citation and

internal quotation omitted). To establish a failure-to-protect

claim, an inmate must show that he was “incarcerated under

conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm and that

prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his need for

protection.” Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995). 

“In order to act with deliberate indifference, ‘the official must

both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn

that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also

draw the inference.’” Id. (quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837). 

McGregor was involved in a fight with another inmate, Dwight

Olige. The magistrate judge held that the defendants were

entitled to judgment because McGregor had failed to present any

evidence showing that the defendants knew or had reason to know

that Olige was violent. McGregor argues that Olige’s records

will establish his violent tendencies and that the defendant had

failed to rebut his allegations. McGregor bore the burden of

proof. McGregor has failed to provide the court with a

transcript of the trial and Olige’s disciplinary records are not

in the record on appeal. McGregor has failed to show that the

magistrate judge erred in granting the motion for judgment as a

matter of law. 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R.

42.2. We note that McGregor has now accumulated at least two

strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We caution McGregor
No. 98-11008

-3-

that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in

forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
#### In the Matter of Darrell Chapman, Petitioner, v Glenn S. Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 212]

*945The detailed misbehavior report, related memoranda and testimony adduced at the hearing provide substantial evidence to support the determination finding petitioner guilty of possessing a weapon and smuggling *(see Matter of Wilson v Goord,*47 AD3d 1102, 1102 [2008]; *Matter of Dexter v Goord,*43 AD3d 516, 517 [2007]). Petitioner’s suggestion that the weapon could have been planted in the contraband watch room prior to his arrival created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve *(see Matter of Wilson v Goord, supra; Matter of Yancey v Conway,*46 AD3d 1042 [2007]). Although no search of the contraband watch room was recorded in the watch room log book *(see*Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4910 [IV] [J] [4] [b]), testimony at the hearing established that such a search had been conducted prior to petitioner’s arrival and was recorded on a contraband receipt. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that this technical defect requires that the determination be annulled *(see Matter of Anderson v Selsky,*297 AD2d 867, 867 [2002]; *Matter of Roman v Selsky,*270 AD2d 519, 520 [2000]; *Matter of Gatson v Selsky,*220 AD2d 906, 907 [1995]).

Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including his claims that he was improperly denied the right to access certain documents and to present witness testimony, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Cardona, P.J., Her cure, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MAGNO.: 11-8018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Criminal Action

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

ARIS VENTURA : ORDER MODIFYING ORDER

SETTING CONDITIONS OF RELEASE

Defendant.

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

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

modifying the Order Setting Conditions of Pretrial Release to permit Mr. Ventura to have a

curfew and to be permitted to leave his home from the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; and it

appearing to the Court that Ronnell Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, having consented

to the request;

NOW THEREFORE, it is on this J4 day ofJuly, 2011

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

modified to permit Aris Ventura to leave his home each day from the hours 7:30 a.m. to 10:00

p.m.; and

1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

CAMDEN VICINAGE 

JENNIFER L. KASILAG, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Civil No. 11-1083 (RMB/KMW)

v.

HARTFORD INVESTMENT FINANCIAL 

SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

JENNIFER L. KASILAG, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Civil No. 14-1611 (RMB/KMW)

v.

HARTFORD FUNDS MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY, LLC,

Defendant.

JENNIFER L. KASILAG, et al.,

Plaintiffs, Civil No. 15-1876 (RMB/KMW)

v. ORDER 

HARTFORD FUNDS MANAGEMENT 

COMPANY, LLC,

Defendant.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon its own motion. 

The Court noting the common questions of law and fact at issue 

in the above-caption litigations against Hartford Funds 

Management Company, LLC, and Hartford Investment Financial 

Services, LLC,

IT IS on this, the 15th day of April 2016, hereby

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 187 Filed 04/15/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 9852
ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

42(a), Kasilag, et al. v. Hartford Investment Financial 

Services, LLC, Civ. No. 11-1083, Kasilag, et al. v. Hartford 

Funds Management Company, LLC, Civ. No. 14-1611, and Kasilag, et 

al. v. Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC, Civ. No. 15-1876 

are hereby consolidated for all purposes under Civil Action No. 

11-1083; and it is further 

ORDERED that Kasilag, et al. v. Hartford Investment 

Financial Services, LLC, Civ. No. 11-1083, shall be designated 

the “Lead Case”; and it is further

ORDERED that all future filings in the consolidated matters 

shall be filed under the docket of the Lead Case; and it is 

further 

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall docket this Order 

in the three individual actions; and it is further 

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively 

terminate Kasilag, et al. v. Hartford Funds Management Company, 

LLC, Civ. No. 14-1611, and Kasilag, et al. v. Hartford Funds 

Management Company, LLC, Civ. No. 15-1876; and it is further 

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall identify on the 

docket of each individual action the Lead Case and the member 

cases.

s/Renée Marie Bumb 

RENÉE MARIE BUMB 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01083-RMB-KMW Document 187 Filed 04/15/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 9853
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5260 

To extend the life of the Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs 

until September 30, 2006. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 7, 2004 

Ms. DELAURO (for herself and Mr. TURNER of Ohio) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small Business, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To extend the life of the Advisory Committee on Veterans 

Business Affairs until September 30, 2006. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LIFE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

4 ON VETERANS BUSINESS AFFAIRS. 

5 Section 203(h) of the Veterans Entrepreneurship and 

6 Small Business Development Act of 1999 (15 U.S.C. 657b 

7 note) is amended by striking ‘‘September 30, 2004’’ and 

8 inserting ‘‘September 30, 2006’’. 
2 

•HR 5260 IH 

1 SEC. 2. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO AS2 SUMPTION OF DUTIES OF ADVISORY COM3 MITTEE ON VETERANS BUSINESS AFFAIRS BY 

4 NATIONAL VETERANS BUSINESS DEVELOP5 MENT CORPORATION. 

6 Section 33(h) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 

7 657c(h)) is amended— 

8 (1) by striking ‘‘October 1, 2004’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘October 1, 2006’’; and 

10 (2) by striking ‘‘of this Act’’ and inserting ‘‘of 

11 the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business 

12 Development Act of 1999 (15 U.S.C. 657b note)’’. 

Æ