alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[934 NYS2d 782]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rivka Goli, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

September 23, 2011

*62APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Lewin & Lewin, LLP,*Washington, D.C. *(Nathan Lewin*of counsel), for appellant. *Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney,*New York City, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction, rendered January 29, 2009, modified, on the law and the facts, to vacate defendant’s conviction of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and to dismiss the count of the accusatory instrument relating thereto and, as modified, affirmed.

The verdict convicting defendant of unlawful eviction *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 26-521 [a] [3]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence, which established that defendant ousted her roommate from possession of the apartment that they had shared for several months by unilaterally changing the entrance lock and removing the complainant’s possessions. While it may be that defendant and the complainant tentatively discussed terminating their written roommate agreement, the court, as factfinder, was warranted in determining that the complainant had not surrendered possession and remained in “lawful occupancy” of the apartment (Administrative Code § 26-521 [a] [3]) at the time the incident occurred. Defendant’s contention that the antieviction ordinance is properly invoked only against a finite class of landlords — those, it is urged, who “engage in bad faith conduct” aimed at reaping unfair profits — is belied by the text of the ordinance, whose terms, with a single, limited exception not here relevant *(see*Administrative Code § 26-522 [b]), are expressly made applicable to “any person” who engages in the conduct proscribed therein.

Far less persuasive was the evidence presented in connection with the governmental obstruction charge. In this regard, *63the trial proof showed only that defendant, during a hiatus in police questioning inside the apartment, peaceably entered her bedroom, locked the door and, in what was described without refutation in the trial testimony as a “fear[ful] and apprehensive]” state, telephoned an attorney acquaintance seeking counsel. On this record, and without more, defendant’s failure to comply with the police directive to open the door did not evince the requisite intent to obstruct the police investigation through “physical force or interference” *(see*Penal Law § 195.05; *Matter of Kendell R.,*71 AD3d 553 [2010]; *People v McDaniel,*154 Misc 2d 89 [1992], *Iv denied*81 NY2d 889 [1993]).

Defendant’s evidentiary arguments, to the extent preserved, are either academic or without merit.

Schoenfeld, J.R, and Hunter, Jr., J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED AUGUST 31, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                         129,342
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,780,193
<ALLOWANCES>                                    55,288
<INVENTORY>                                  2,900,288
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,011,821
<PP&E>                                      10,433,145
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,556,828
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,226,895
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,514,897
<BONDS>                                      3,668,318
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,513
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,480,685
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,226,895
<SALES>                                     22,323,467
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,323,467
<CGS>                                       18,569,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,569,514
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,793,550
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               107,980
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             650,730
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                201,693
<INCOME-TAX>                                    70,260 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            131,433
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   131,433
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
#### Robert D. HOLLAND, Plaintiff, v. MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 860-61.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

Oct. 27, 1961.

Cyrus A. Ansary, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Robert B. Owen, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

The defendant corporation objects to a set of interrogatories served by the plaintiff and addressed to Paul B. Wish-art, President, Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, on the ground that under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., interrogatories may be directed only to an adverse party.

The objection is well founded and will be sustained. There is no warrant in Rule 33 for the service of interrogatories on anyone except an adverse party. There is a provision that if the party served is a corporation or a partnership or association, the interrogatories may be answered by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party. It is the view of this Court that this provision does not mean that the party serving the interrogatories may select the particular officer or agent of the adverse party and direct the interrogatories by name to such officer or agent. Interrogatories may be directed only to the adverse party, and if the adverse party is not an individual, then the party selects some officer or agent to respond to the interrogatories and to swear to the answers.

For these reasons, the objections *xo*the set of interrogatories directed to the President of the defendant company are sustained, without prejudice.
**Exhibit 34.2**

<LOGO> 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM 

LNR Partners, LLC 

Miami Beach, Florida

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation ABServicing Criteria, that LNR Partners, LLC (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securitiestransactions for which the Company served as special servicer, and that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31,2013, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), (3)(i)(c), (3)(i)(d), (3)(ii), (3)(iii), (3)(iv), (4)(v), (4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii), (4)(xiv) and (4)(xv) which management has determined are not applicable to the activitiesperformed by the Company with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’scompliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established bythe American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specifiedperiod, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, suchsamples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the periodspecified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does notprovide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Companycomplied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013 for the commercial mortgage-backed securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

February 28, 2014
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of Texas Biotechnology Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Stephen L. Mueller, Vice President, Finance and Administration of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



/s/ STEPHEN L. MUELLER
------------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Mueller
Vice President, Finance and Administration

May 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Texas Biotechnology Corporation and will be retained by Texas
Biotechnology Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1998 AND INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
NOVEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM
10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,701,000
<SECURITIES>                                 6,600,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,514,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   650,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,530,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,213,000
<PP&E>                                      16,817,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,808,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,252,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,386,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        40,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,826,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,252,000
<SALES>                                     20,454,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            42,713,000
<CGS>                                       18,038,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,780,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,221,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,067,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,292,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,775,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,775,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
        

</TABLE>
Amendment No. 4 to Amended and Restated Phantom Stock Plan



 Exhibit 10.20 
 AMENDMENT NO. 4 
 TO 

AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 STATER BROS. HOLDINGS INC. 
 PHANTOM STOCK PLAN DATED MAY 15, 2006

 (January 1, 2011) 
 The Amended and Restated Stater Bros. Holdings Inc. Phantom StockPlan dated May 15, 2006 (“Phantom Stock Plan”) amended on September 30, 2005 and May 15, 2006 is hereby further
amended as follows: 
 Section 4.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 

4.1 Eligibility and Grant of Awards. Awards may be granted to any Eligible Employee. Subject to the express provisions of the
Plan, the Chairman of the Board or Chief Executive Officer of Company must first recommend, in his or her sole discretion, which Eligible Employees shall be granted Awards. Both the Committee and the Board of Directors must then approve the
recommendation, and upon approval such Eligible Employee shall become a Participant herein and may be granted Awards as determined by the Committee. The units awarded shall be assigned a Stated Value determined by the Committee no later than twelve
(12) months from the grant of Award based on the Company’s most recent financial statements and other information deemed relevant by the Committee. Each Award granted pursuant to the Plan shall be evidenced by a Phantom Stock Award
Agreement substantially in the form attached to this Plan, executed by Company and the Eligible Employee to whom the Award is granted, specifying the number of Share Units awarded to the Eligible Employee and incorporating such terms as are required
by the Plan and additional terms as the Committee deems necessary or desirable. Subject to the requirements for vesting and unless otherwise specified in the Award agreement, the specified number of Share Units shall be deemed credited as of the
month and day of the Effective Date of the Award. 
 Section 7.3 Partial Payments is hereby deleted in its entirety. 

Section 8.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 
 8.1 Established Value. Payments of the Established Value of a Participant’s account, upon the election of the Participant made within thirty (30) days of the grant of an Award may be
(i) a lump sum, or (ii) in equal annual installments over a five (5) year period from the Benefit Commencement Date, or (iii) in other installment payments requested by the Participant and approved by the Committee, provided that
any such payments shall not violate any applicable law, or the provisions or covenants of any bank credit agreement, the Indentures dated June 17, 2004, April 18, 2007 and November 29, 2010 and with respect to Company’s 8 1/8% Senior Notes due 2012 and 7 3/8% Senior Notes due 2018 or any other agreements then in effect to
which Company is a party. Such payments shall be sufficient to fully amortize Participant’s Established Value plus interest computed at the then prevailing prime rate of the Bank of America over any installment period. 

Except as amended herein all other provisions of the Phantom Stock Plan remain in full force and effect.
exv10w41






Exhibit 10.41




Schedule of Director Compensation Arrangements




Board Compensation for 2008 (effective April 29, 2008):




Non-Employee Director Cash Compensation:




	 	 	 	 	 
	2007
	Annual Retainer
	 	$	65,000	 
	Chair of Audit Committee Annual Retainer
	 	$	10,000	 
	Chair of Compensation & Nominating and Governance Committee
Annual Retainer
	 	$	5,000	 





Non-Employee Director Equity Awards:




	 	 	 
	Director	 	Restricted Stock Award(1)
	Ben Guill
	 	2,690
	Richard A. Bachmann
	 	2,690
	Kenneth M. Burke
	 	2,690
	Edward C. Hutcheson, Jr.
	 	2,690
	Myles W. (Bill) Scoggins
	 	2,690
	Per Staehr
	 	2,690








 




			
	(1)	 	Equity awards granted on April 29, 2008 with a fair market value of $37.17 (closing
price as of April 29, 2008). Awards are intended to reflect equity in the amount of
$100,000 per director. Restrictions lapse 30 days from the date of grant — May 28, 2008.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE U.S. CODE
  1.
    
    the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the
Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   /s/ Terence E. HallTerence E. HallChairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer
Superior Energy Services, Inc.
#### The DAYTON TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY v. Charles BERMAN.

Civ. A. No. 31249.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

July 9, 1962.

*211Jenkins, Bennett & Jenkins, by Harry L. Jenkins, Sr., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Malis, Malis & Malis, by David S. Malis, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

WOOD, District Judge.

This is an action for a balance in excess of $60,000.00 for goods sold and delivered. Defendant was a distributor of plaintiff’s tires, appointed to sell to other dealers in this area. Defendant filed a counterclaim alleging, inter alia, that plaintiff failed to credit defendant with $20,000.00 resulting from returns of merchandise, which returns were authorized by plaintiff. It is also alleged that plaintiff maliciously caused defendant’s customers to cease dealing with defendant, and that this resulted in a loss to defendant in the amount of $100,000.00.

Plaintiff is seeking a more definite statement of the defendant’s claim with respect to the returns of merchandise; in particular, the names and addresses of customers who allegedly returned items, the dates of the returns, the amounts thereof, and the dates on which plaintiff’s agents allegedly authorized such returns and credits. In addition, plaintiff seeks a more definite statement as to how plaintiff maliciously caused defendant to lose customers, and how the resulting $100,000.00 of alleged damages was calculated.

The law is clear that a more definite statement under Rule 12(e), Fed. R.Civ.P. 28 U.S.C. will be granted only when a pleading, to which a responsive pleading is permitted or necessary, is so vague that the responsive pleading cannot be framed. Motions under this rule are not to be used as a means of obtaining evidence or information which could be obtained by discovery.

Applying these simple principles to the present motion, we think that the defendant should furnish a more definite statement explaining the allegation that the plaintiff “maliciously” caused the defendant to lose customers. However, the other information sought by this motion is not, in our view, necessary to the adequate preparation of an answer to the counterclaim, and is more properly obtained by discovery. Therefore, in all other regards, the motion will be denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.2






The Board of Directors and Shareholders
DATATRAK International, Inc.

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-16061, 333-26251 and 333-90699) pertaining to the
Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc. Amended and Restated 1992 Share Incentive
Plan, Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc. Amended and Restated 1994 Directors'
Share Option Plan, Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc. Amended and Restated
1996 Outside Directors Stock Option Plan and the Collaborative Clinical
Research, Inc. Amended and Restated 1996 Key Employees and Consultants Stock
Option Plan and the DATATRAK International, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan of our
reports dated April 24, 2001 and July 25, 2001 relating to the unaudited
condensed consolidated interim financial statements of DATATRAK International,
Inc. and subsidiaries that are included in its Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended
March 31, 2001 and June 30, 2001.



                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Cleveland, Ohio
July 25, 2001
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6608

EARL LINWOOD GREGORY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

R. BOYERS; C. H. BYERS, Sergeant; C. D.

BUTLER, Corporal; J. FRIDLEY; CORRECTIONAL

OFFICER MINTER; CHARLES T. CUNNIFF,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-94-473-R)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 29, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Linwood Gregory, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of several Defendants, leaving one Defendant remaining in the case. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292

(1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan

Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a

final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED