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

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 519 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.519

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the seventh day of January, two thousand and three

                                 An Act

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the San 
            Gabriel River Watershed, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``San Gabriel River Watershed Study 
Act''.

SEC. 2. STUDY OF SAN GABRIEL RIVER WATERSHED.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this 
Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall conduct a special resource 
study of the following areas:
        (1) The San Gabriel River and its tributaries north of and 
    including the city of Santa Fe Springs.
        (2) The San Gabriel Mountains within the territory of the San 
    Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (as 
    defined in section 32603(c)(1)(C) of the State of California Public 
    Resource Code).
    (b) Study Conduct and Completion.--Section 8(c) of Public Law 91-
383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and completion of 
the study conducted under this section.
    (c) Consultation with Federal, State, and Local Governments.--In 
conducting the study under this section, the Secretary shall consult 
with the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains 
Conservancy and other appropriate Federal, State, and local 
governmental entities.
    (d) Considerations.--In conducting the study under this section, 
the Secretary shall consider regional flood control and drainage needs 
and publicly owned infrastructure such as wastewater treatment 
facilities.

SEC. 3. REPORT.

    Not later than 3 years after funds are made available for this Act, 
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources of the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
Representatives a report on the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations of the study.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 August 14, 2020

Order 

Clerk

August 14, 2020

161625-6(111)(112)(113)

MARC SLIS and 906 VAPOR, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

SC: 161625

v COA: 351211 

Ct of Claims: 19-000152-MZ

STATE OF MICHIGAN and DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Defendants-Appellants. 

___________________________________________

A CLEAN CIGARETTE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

SC: 161626

v COA: 351212

Ct of Claims: 19-000154-MZ

GOVERNOR, STATE OF MICHIGAN, and 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES, 

Defendants-Appellants.

___________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the separate motions of Terrill Bravender, MD, MPH, 

Sharon Swindell, MD, MPH, and Tylise Ivey to file briefs amicus curiae are GRANTED. 

The amicus briefs submitted by those persons on August 13, 2020, are accepted for filing.
Case 2:11-cr-00428-SDW Document 121 Filed 05/09/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 120
##### 



Exhibit 4.13

[Translation]

**        This exhibit contains confidential material which has been omitted
pursuant to a Confidential Treatment Request. The omitted information has
been filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Amendment to Outsourcing Fee Agreement and Outsourcing Agreement

This amendment to the Outsourcing Fee Agreement and Outsourcing Agreement is
made between Crayfish Co., Ltd. (Crayfish) and CalltoWeb, Inc. (CTW) (the
Parties) with respect to Paragraph 3 of the Outsourcing Fee Agreement (Fee
Agreement) between the Parties dated August 1, 2002 and Article 2 of the
Outsourcing Agreement.

Paragraph 1. Amended Outsourcing fee

Effective beginning in the month of November 2002, Crayfish and CTW shall amend
the outsourcing fee defined in Article 1 of Fee Agreement as described below
(Amended Fee), provided however that if the Amended Fee falls below **, the
Amended Fee will be revised again in the month following the month in which the
Amended Fee falls below **.

Amended
Fee ** times the number of subscribers on the first day of
the month

Paragraph 2. Additional Task

The following task shall be included in Article 2 of the Outsourcing Agreement
and consideration for this task shall be included in the Amended Fee above.

In order to lower DESKWING subscriber cancellations, CTW shall carry out
telemarketing campaigns to DESKWING subscribers as directed by Crayfish.

Paragraph 3. Others

Any matter not addressed herein shall be governed by the Outsourcing Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of party shall execute the Agreement in duplicate and
each of Crayfish and CTW shall retain one original copy.

The date of the Agreement: December 1, 2002

Crayfish Co.,Ltd.
Toshima-ku Ikebukuro 2-2-1 Tokyo
/s/ Kazuhiko Muraki sealed by stamp
Kazuhiko Muraki
President and Representative Director

CalltoWeb, Inc.
Toshima-ku, North Ikebukuro 2-49-7 Tokyo
/s/ Takeshi Tamamura sealed by stamp
Takeshi Tamamura
President and Representative Director
James E. Cecchi

Lindsey H. Taylor

Caroline F. Bartlett

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI

OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO 

5 Becker Farm Road

Roseland, New Jersey 07068

(973) 994-1700

Attorneys for Demand Futile Plaintiffs

Gary Graifman

KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER &

GRAIFMAN, P.C.

210 Summit Avenue

Montvale, New Jersey 07645

(201) 391-7000

Attorneys for Demand Refused Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE JOHNSON & JOHNSON DERIVATIVE 

LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 10-2033 (FLW)

IN RE JOHNSON & JOHNSON FCPA 

SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 11-2511 (FLW)

COPELAND v. PRINCE, et al.

Civil Action No. 11-4993 (FLW)

NOTICE OF MOTION

To: All Counsel on ECF List

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on such date and time as the Court shall direct, the 

undersigned counsel for Plaintiffs shall move before Hon. Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J. at the 

Clarkson S. Fisher Federal Building, 402 E. State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608 for an 

Order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1.

The undersigned intends to rely upon the annexed Brief and Exhibits attached thereto. 

The undersigned hereby requests oral argument.

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 53 Filed 07/11/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 620
2

CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,

OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO

Counsel for Demand Futile Plaintiffs

By: /s/ James E. Cecchi

JAMES E. CECCHI

Dated: July 11, 2012

Mark Lebovitch

Jeroen van Kwawegen

Jeremy Friedman

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER

 & GROSSMANN LLP

1285 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10019

(212) 554-1400

Karen L. Morris

Patrick F. Morris

MORRIS AND MORRIS LLC

 COUNSELORS AT LAW

4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 300

Wilmington, Delaware 19807

(302) 426-0400

Darren J. Robbins

Travis E. Downs III

David W. Mitchell

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN

 & DOWD LLP

655 West Broadway, Suite 1900

San Diego, California 92101

(619) 231-1058

Attorneys for Demand Futile Plaintiffs

Jeffrey S. Abraham Gary Graifman

ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER &

 TWERSKY, LLP GRAIFMAN, P.C.

One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 210 Summit Avenue

New York, NY 10119 Montvale, New Jersey 07645

(2123) 279-5050 (201) 391-7000

Attorneys for Demand Refused Plaintiffs

Case 3:11-cv-02511-FLW-DEA Document 53 Filed 07/11/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 621
#### Corley *v.*The State.

Bleckley, C. J. — 1. The motion in arrest of judgment is controlled by *Moody*v. *The State,*54 *Ga.*660, in connection with *Arnold*v. *The State,*51 *Ga.*144, *Isom*v. *The State,*83 *Ga.*378, and *Jenkins*v. *The State,*92 *Ga.*470, 17 S. E. Rep. 693.

*4662. The indictment being for an assault with intent to murder, and alleging that with a pistol, a rock and a large stick the accused did assault, beat and shoot a named person; a conviction thereon could be had for shooting at that person, and there being evidence that the accused shot a pistol, making thereby a wound upon the person named in the indictment, although there was conflicting evidence both as to the shooting and the cause of the wound, there was enough on which to base a charge to the jury authorizing them, if they thought the evidence warranted it, to find the defendant guilty of the minor offense of shooting at another.

3. The sentence having been pronounced in October, it was too late to except thereto on the following June. There was no error in denying a new trial, or in refusing to arrest the judgment.

October 8,1894.

*■*Indictment for assault to murder. Before Judge Clark. Rockdale superior court. April term, 1894.

Defendant was found “guilty of shooting at another.” He moved in arrest of judgment, on the grounds, that the verdict did not find him guilty of any offense under the law, and that it was a special and not a general verdict and therefore illegal. He also 'moved for a new trial on the general grounds, and because the court charged the jury that he could be found guilty of shooting at another. He excepted to the overruling of these motions, and to the sentence of the court. The verdict was rendered and the sentence pronounced at the October term, 1893. The two motions were overruled in May thereafter.

A. C. McCalla, J. R. Irwin and J. N. Glenn, for plaintiff in error. J. S. Candler, solicitor-general, *contra.*

*Judgment affirmed.*
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

FRESENIUS KABI USA, LLC, Appellant

v.

J. KYLE BASS, ERICH SPANGENBERG, Appellees

______________________

2017

- 2402

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2016

- 00254.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J OHN T. B ENNETT , Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston, MA, argued for appellant. Also represented by S AMUEL S HERRY

, D ARYL L. W IESEN ; C YNTHIA L AMBERT H ARDMAN

, New York, NY.

G REGORY J. G ONSALVES

, The Gonsalves Law Firm, Falls Church, VA, argued for appellees.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE

, W ALLACH

, and C HEN

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

November 7, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of New Jersey

CHAMBERS OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

JOSE L. LINARES FEDERAL BUILDING & U.S. COURTHOUSE

JUDGE 50 WALNUT ST.. ROOM 5054

P.O. Box 999

Newark, NJ 07101-0999

973-645-6042

JuneM, 2012

Andrew Cox Jane Yoon

ECCF J201 107038 Office ofthe U.S. Attorney

354 Doremus Avenue District of New Jersey

Newark, NJ 07105 970 Broad Street, Suite 700

Newark, NJ 07102

Michael N. Pedicini

60 Washington Street

Morristown, NJ 07960

LETTER ORDER

Re: United States v. Cox

Criminal No.: 11-99

Dear Messrs. Cox and Counsel:

This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant Andrew Cox’s request that this

Court hear at its July 16, 2012 hearing Defendant’s Motion to Produce a Search Warrant for the

purported March 23, 2011 search and seizure at the Maitland home by Pre-Trial Services.

[Docket Entry No. 113]. The Court will hear oral argument on Defendant’s Motion to Produce

to the extent that said motion is incorporated into Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket Entry

No. 88], with arguments regarding government misconduct incorporated by reference from

Defendant’s Motion for Release from Custody [Docket Entry No. 78].

IT IS accordingly on this I j dofJune, 2012,

ORDERED that the Government shall file its response, if any, to Defendant’s Motion to

Produce [Docket Entry No. 87] no later than June 25th, 2012; and it is further

ORDERED that Defendant shall file his reply thereto, not to exceed five (5) pages, by

July 2nd, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jose 1/nares

Uni 1&l States District Judge

Case 2:11-cr-00099-CCC Document 116 Filed 06/20/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1296
Case 3:11-cr-00201-JAP Document 106 Filed 12/28/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 909
Case 3:11-cr-00201-JAP Document 106 Filed 12/28/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 910
Case 3:11-cr-00201-JAP Document 106 Filed 12/28/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 911
Case 3:11-cr-00201-JAP Document 106 Filed 12/28/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 912
Case 3:11-cr-00201-JAP Document 106 Filed 12/28/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 913
#### In the Matter of Peter Samuel, Respondent, v Abril Samuel, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 222]

In a visitation proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Grosvenor, J.), dated September 6, 2005, which granted the father’s petition for visitation with the parties’ children.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings.

Family Court Act § 262 (a) grants a person in certain proceed*1011ings the right to counsel. Under the statute, the Family Court must “advise such person before proceeding that he or she has the right to be represented by counsel of his or her own choosing, of [his] right to have an adjournment to confer with counsel, and of [his] right to have counsel assigned by the court in any case where he or she is financially unable to obtain the same.” This provision applies to respondents in visitation proceedings *(see Matter of Wilson v Bennett,*282 AD2d 933, 934 [2001]).

Here, the parties agree that, although the Family Court advised the mother that she had the right to counsel, it failed to tell her that she had the right to counsel of her own choosing, the right to an adjournment to confer with counsel, and the right to an assignment of counsel if she could not afford to retain counsel. The father argues, however, that the mother waived her right to counsel. We disagree.

The court’s failure to advise the mother of her rights under the statute requires reversal *(see Matter of Hall v Ladson,*28 AD3d 768, 768-769 [2006]; *Matter of Grayson v Fenton, 8*AD3d 696 [2004]). A waiver is the “intentional relinquishment of a known right with both knowledge of its existence and an intention to relinquish it” *(Werking v Amity Estates, 2*NY2d 43, 52 [1956], citing Whitney, Contracts, at 273 [4th ed 1946]; *see Gilbert Frank Corp. v Federal Ins. Co.,*70 NY2d 966, 968 [1988]). The mother did not waive her right to counsel. The mother never explicitly waived that right *(see Matter of Miranda v Vasquez,*14 AJD3d 566 [2005]; *Matter of Alexander v Maharaj,*299 AD2d 354, 355 [2002]). Further, nothing in the record shows that the mother knew of her rights to an adjournment or to have counsel assigned if she could not afford to retain counsel *(cf. Matter of F. Children,*199 AD2d 81 [1993]). Additionally, Family Court Act § 262 (a) requires that the Family Court advise the party of his or her rights before the court proceeds. Here, the Family Court failed to do so.

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or based upon matter dehors the record. Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DAYS INNS WORLDWIDE, INC., a 

Delaware Corporation, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

MIMAR INVESTMENT CO., a Virginia 

Corporation; JAMES M. KOKOLIS, an 

individual; and PAULA KOKOLIS, an 

individual, 

 Defendants. 

: 

: 

: 

: FINAL JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT

: 

: Civ. No. 11-3219 (WHW) 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

Walls, Senior District Judge 

 This matter having been opened to the Court by plaintiff, Days Inns Worldwide, Inc., by 

its attorneys, Clyde & Co US LLP, seeking the entry of final judgment by default against 

defendants Mimar Investment Co., James M. Kokolis, and Paula Kokolis pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 55(b)(2), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Opinion, and good cause therefor, 

 IT IS on this 19th day of March, 2012, 

 ORDERED, ADJUGED, and DECREED that Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. have judgment 

against Mimar Investment Co., James M. Kokolis, and Paula Kokolis, jointly and severally, in 

the total amount of $115,516.13, comprised of the following: 

a) $108,355.77 for recurring fees owed (principal plus prejudgment interest); and 

b) $7,160.36 for attorneys' fees and costs. 

s/ William H. Walls 

United States Senior District Judge

Case 2:11-cv-03219-WHW -MCA Document 15 Filed 03/19/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 175
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of PRIMEDIA Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dean B. Nelson,Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

(2)            The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| /s/ DEAN B. NELSON                                 |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dean B. Nelson                                     |   |
| *Chairman,  Chief Executive Officer and President* |   |

 

May 10, 2006

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to theextent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by theCompany for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors and Shareholders 

SonicInnovations, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements (Nos. 333-104239, 333-36562, 333-59988, 333-76250, 333-98303, 333-99035, 333-115524) on Forms S-8 of Sonic Innovations, Inc. of our reports dated March 30, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of SonicInnovations, Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004 andthe related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K of Sonic Innovations, Inc. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

March 30, 2005
EX-10.31



 Exhibit 10.31 
 McDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. 
 Summary of 

Named Executive Officer 
 2013 Base Salary and 
 Target EICP Compensation 

 

									
	 Named Executive Officer
	  	Base
Salary	 	 	Target EICP Award
(as 
a % of 2013 base salary earned)	 
	 Stephen M. Johnson
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	985,000	  	 	 	100	% 
	 Perry L. Elders
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
	  	$	515,000	  	 	 	70	% 
	 Gary L. Carlson
Senior Vice President and Chief Administration Officer
	  	$	400,000	  	 	 	70	% 
	 Liane K. Hinrichs
Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
	  	$	477,750	  	 	 	70	% 
	 John T. McCormack
Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer
	  	$	576,800	  	 	 	80	%
QRDE.R

This matter havi.ng come before the Ccurt on various

motions of defendant Sixing Liu (James D. Tunick, Es,

appearing) and the United States of America (Paul J. Fishman,

United States Attorney, by L. Judson Welle and Gurbir S. Grewal,

Assistant United States Attorneys, appearing), and the Court

having heard the arguments of counsel, and such motions being

moot or having been adjudicated upon oral rulings made during

course of the trial in the above-referenced case, and for the

reasons stated on the record atbial, and r good cause shown,

IT IS on this day

, 2012,

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike as Surplusage

Paragraph 27 of the Superseding Indictment (Docket Entry 51) is

hereby DENIED AS MOOT; and it is further

ORDERED that t.he Government’s Motion in Limine to Admit

Evidence Under FRE, 404(b) and 403 (Docket Entry 84) is hereby

DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART, art ts firpber
ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion in Lirnine to

F.xc1ude Evidence of Internet Web Page Exhibits is hereby GRANTED.

SIA FEY P CeESLER

United States District Judge
2012 Exhibit 10.48.2






Exhibit 10.48.2


FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to that certain Employment Agreement made and entered into as of September 27, 2012 by and between Sprint Nextel Corporation and MICHAEL SCHWARTZ (the “Agreement”) is entered into on this 10th day of December, 2012. Certain capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement.


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


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


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


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


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




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




SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION            EXECUTIVE




/s/ Sandra J. Price                    /s/ Michael Schwartz            
By: Sandra J. Price,                     MICHAEL SCHWARTZ
Senior Vice President, Human Resources