alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Mayfield v. District of Columbia et al. Syrowski v. District of Columbia et al.

March 4, 1986

Case Nos. (Law) 8514 and 8515

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

These matters, are. before the Court on plaintiffs* motion to compel; disclosure of a statement made, in a document by an employee of the defendant. Defendant claims that the statement is protected by the attorney work product deliberative, process exemption.

There is nothing in the document itself nor is there; any evidence before the Court that this document falls within the attorney-work product exception to discovery. The document appears to have been prepared for submission by . an employee at. Lorton to. a superior, also aa employee of defendant. Under these circumstances the rule, as set forth in *Robertson*v. *Commonwealth,*181 Va. 520, 25 S.E.2d 352 (1943), and *Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.*v. Knight, 106 Va. 674, 56 S.E. 725 (1907), would apply. Tfhe , holding of these cases, is that a statement made by an employee to his employer in. the course of his ordinary duty is not privileged unless for the *bona fide*purpose of being *158transmitted to employer's attorney for advice or use in connection with threatened or pending litigation.

Absent any evidence of such a *bona fide*purpose the document in its entirety must be disclosed to plaintiffs or their counsel.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

D.L., the mother

, Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2996

[ January 7, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Alberto Ribas, Jr. , Judge; L.T. Case No. 17

- 5072DP

.

Lori D. Shelby, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz,

Assi stant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee

.

Morgan Lyle Weinstein of Weinstein Law, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Thomasina F. Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals of Statewide Guardian ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, on behalf of A.L. , the child.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE
, C.J., M AY and G ERBER
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Notice of Termination from Pfizer Inc. dated December 16, 2010



 Exhibit 10.55 

 

					
		  		  	 Pfizer Inc.
 235
East 42nd Street

New York, NY 10017-5755

	
 



	  		  	
		  		  	 Olivier Brandicourt, MD
 President & General Manager
 Primary Care Business Unit



December 16, 2010 
 Adolor Corporation

 700 Pennsylvania Drive 
 Exton,
Pennsylvania 19341 
 Attn: Michael R. Dougherty 
           President and Chief Executive Officer 

Dear Mr. Dougherty: 
 Reference is made to
the License and Collaboration Agreement, dated as of December 4, 2007 (the “License Agreement” and the terms used herein shall be defined as therein), by and between Adolor Corporation (“Adolor”)
and Pfizer Inc (“Pfizer”). Pfizer hereby notifies you that it is exercising its right to terminate the License Agreement pursuant to Section 14.2.3.(a). Pfizer has concluded that, based on its evaluation of all results
and data from the Phase 2a Studies listed in the Development Plan for each of ADL 5859 and ADL 5747, it would not be commercially reasonable for Pfizer to continue Development. The License Agreement shall be terminated effective March 16, 2011.

 Pfizer also would like to confirm that after March 16, 2011, certain rights and obligations of Pfizer and Adolor will survive
termination of the License Agreement as set forth in Section 15.4, including but not limited to, the provisions in Section 10.1.1. 

Pfizer promptly will begin to work with Adolor to develop and implement a transition plan pursuant to Section 15.3 of the License Agreement.

 Pfizer has greatly appreciated the chance to work with Adolor on this program and please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to
discuss any matters further. 
 Sincerely, 
  

	
	/s/ Olivier Brandicourt
	Olivier Brandicourt

 cc: 

 

					
	 Pfizer
	  		  	Adolor
	 Dr. Mikael Dolsten
	  		  	John M. Limongelli, Esq.
	Ms. K. Peck	  		  	
	Ms. A. Schulman	  		  	Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
	Mr. P. Buckley	  		  	Mr. R. Sunberg
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          18,573
<SECURITIES>                                     3,448
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,764
<ALLOWANCES>                                       756
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,900
<PP&E>                                           3,791
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,221
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           174
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,181
<SALES>                                         10,746
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                16,759
<CGS>                                            1,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,321
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (84)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (84)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (84)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 188 (Friday, September 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20871]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board for the Federal 
Retirement Thrift Investment Board. The purpose of the Performance 
Review Board is to make written recommendations on each executive's 
annual summary ratings, performance-based pay adjustment, and 
performance awards to the appointing authority.

DATES: This notice is applicable September 29, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Powell, HR Specialist, at 202-
942-1681.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 5, U.S. Code, 4314(c)(4), requires 
that the appointment of Performance Review Board members be published 
in the Federal Register before Board service commences. The following 
persons will serve on the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board's 
Performance Review Board which will review initial summary ratings to 
ensure the ratings are consistent with established performance 
requirements, reflect meaningful distinctions among senior executives 
based on their relative performance and organizational results and 
provide recommendations for ratings, awards, and pay adjustments in a 
fair and equitable manner: Susan Crowder, Gisile Goethe, Renee Wilder 
Guerin, and Kim Weaver.

Megan Grumbine,
General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 2017-20871 Filed 9-28-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-45573) pertaining to the 1988 and 1990 Stock Option Plans, in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-88590) pertaining to the 1992 Stock
Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-311419) pertaining
to the 1995 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-333647) pertaining to the 1996 Stock Option Plan, in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-81647) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Option Plan, and
in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-97207) of Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corporation of our report dated August 9, 2002, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended June 30, 2002.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Phoenix, Arizona
September 26, 2002
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jimmy Wayne Carr, Appellant

No. 06

- 19

- 001 32

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 27 814 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

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

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Jimmy Wayne Carr, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JANUARY 9, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
NO. 07-03-0039-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	APRIL 17, 2003

	______________________________

	DAVID SOLOMON MAZE, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE CRIMINAL JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY;

	NO. 81899; HONORABLE LARRY GIST, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	ABATEMENT AND REMAND

	Pending in this court is an appeal by David Maze, appellant, in which appointed counsel for appellant has filed a brief in accordance with the principles set out in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).  Appellant has advised this court, both by pro se motions and correspondence, that he desires to file a pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief, but that he has been unable to access a copy of the clerk’s records for his conviction despite repeated attempts and requests.  The appeal has been abated pending appellant’s having been afforded access to the clerk’s record for his conviction.

	This court’s previous order abating the appeal is continued pending further order of this court.  Additionally, this cause is remanded to the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County (the trial court).  Upon remand, the judge of the trial court is directed to immediately cause notice to be given of and to conduct a hearing to determine: (1) whether appellant has or has had sufficient access to the clerk’s record on appeal or a copy of the clerk’s record on appeal in this matter to afford appellant a reasonable time to prepare a pro se response to his appellate counsel’s Anders brief; and (2) if appellant does not have or has not had reasonable access to the clerk’s record on appeal or a copy thereof, then what orders, if any, should be entered to assure such access by appellant to the record.  Additionally, the trial court is directed to enter orders, if any, which it determines should be entered to assure appellant such access to a copy of the clerk’s record on appeal as is reasonable for appellant to prepare a response to appellant’s counsel’s Anders brief. 

	The trial court is directed to: (1) conduct any necessary hearings; (2) make and file appropriate findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations, and cause them to be included in a clerk’s record on remand; (3) enter any orders appropriate to the circumstances; (4) cause the hearing proceedings to be transcribed and included in a reporter’s record; and (5) have a record of the proceedings made to the extent any of the proceedings are not included in the supplemental clerk’s record or the reporter’s record.  In the absence of a request for extension of time from the trial court, the clerk’s record on remand, reporter’s record of the hearing and proceedings pursuant to this order, and any additional proceeding records, including any orders, findings, conclusions and recommendations, are to be sent so as to be received by the clerk of this court not later than May 16, 2003. 	

								Per Curiam

Do not publish.
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2010-07-07T06:50:27-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
**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 Boykin Lodging Company (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, RobertW. Boykin, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.
/s/ Robert W. BoykinRobert W. Boykin
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------






                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (File Numbers 33-66826, 33-78546, 33-95432 and 333-57249) and Form
S-3 (File Numbers 33-71416, 333-1748, 333-54804, 333-64734 and 333-76556) of
Able Laboratories, Inc., of our report dated February 28, 2002 appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Able Laboratories, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2001.



/s/ Wolf & Company, P.C.
Boston, Massachusetts
March 25, 2002
I 

★

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 279 

To prohibit any Federal agency or official, in carrying out any Act or 

program to reduce the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate 

change, from imposing a fee or tax on gaseous emissions emitted directly 

by livestock. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 12, 2011 

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 

on Ways and Means, 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 prohibit any Federal agency or official, in carrying out 

any Act or program to reduce the effects of greenhouse 

gas emissions on climate change, from imposing a fee 

or tax on gaseous emissions emitted directly by livestock. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF IMPOSITION OF FEE OR TAX 

4 ON GASEOUS EMISSIONS BY LIVESTOCK. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in car6 rying out any Act or program to reduce the effects of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 279 IH1S 

1 greenhouse gas emissions on climate change, no Federal 

2 agency or official shall impose a fee or tax on gaseous 

3 emissions emitted directly by livestock. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

#### Ratcliff v. Allen

December 30, 1986

Case No. (Chancery) 17361

By JUDGE ALFRED D. SWERSKY

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Special Plea of Laches. The Court, having heard the evidence and considered the arguments of counsel, must deny Defendant's plea. While it Is true that the Plaintiff kniew as early as July 1982 about the issue of the possible ademption of the real estate and suit was not filed until May 22, 198S, the mere passage of this amount of time is not sufficient to bar Plaintiff’s claim. The defense of laches requires, in addition to an unreasonable delay, a resulting prejudice to the Defendant. This prejudice is usually described in terms of an exposure to the danger of an injustice from a loss of material evidence and information or substantial changes in conditions which cannot be restored.

The Court cannot find the resulting prejudice required by the laches doctrine. Defendant's financial condition has not been altered to such an extent that it cannot be restored, nor have I heard evidence sufficient to find the loss of material evidence or information due to the passage of time.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Special Plea of Laches will be denied.
#### Ramon GUEL, Jr., Appellant, v. Warden WHITEHEAD, Appellee.

No. 07-2983.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 13, 2008.

Filed: June 26, 2008.

Ramon Guel Jr., Yankton, SD, pro se.

Jan Leslie Holmgren, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, for Appellee.

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Ramon Guel, Jr., appeals the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We conclude the denial was proper for the reasons explained by the district court. *See United States v. Lurie,*207 F.3d 1075, 1076 (8th Cir.2000) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and deny as moot Guel’s motion for a ruling. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP17-808-000]

Take notice that a technical conference will be held on Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

                    At the technical conference, the Commission staff and the parties to the proceeding should be prepared to discuss all issues in this proceeding as established in the September 1, 2017 Order.[1] 

                    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to                     *accessibility@ferc.gov*                     or call toll free (866) 208-3372 (voice) or (202) 502-8659 (TTY), or send a fax to (202) 208-2106 with the required accommodations.                

                    All interested persons and staff are permitted to attend. For further information please contact Leslie Fyock at (202) 502-6670 or email                     *Leslie.Fyock@ferc.gov.*

Dated: September 20, 2017.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                                                     *Algonquin Gas Trans., LLC,*                         160 FERC 61,046 (2017).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2017-20558 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit
4.16


 


EXTENSION
AGREEMENT


 


Reference
is made to that certain Note, dated October 21, 2016 (the “Note”), in the principal amount of $50,000 of Qpagos,
a Nevada corporation (the “Company”).


 


Whereas,
the Note was due on February 17, 2017 (the “Maturity Date”),
and the undersigned holder desired to extend the Maturity Date until May 30, 2017;


 


Whereas,
the Note was due on May 30, 2017 (the “Maturity Date”),
and the undersigned holder desires to further extend the Maturity Date until June 29, 2017;


 


Now,
Therefore, in consideration of the premises, and for other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed that:


 


		1.	The
                                         undersigned holder hereby agrees to extend to Maturity Date to June 29, 2017 to afford
                                         the Company more time to secure the funds to repay the Note.



 


		2.	This
                                         Extension Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto regarding
                                         the subject matter set forth herein and there are no agreements, warranties or representations
                                         which are not set forth therein or herein.



 


		3.	This
                                         Extension Agreement may not be modified or amended except by an instrument in writing
                                         duly signed by or on behalf of the parties hereto.



 


		4.	This
                                         Extension Agreement may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each
                                         of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and
                                         the same instrument.



 


		5.	This
                                         Extension Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
                                         the State of Nevada without giving effect to the principles of conflicts of laws thereof.



 


Executed
as of the 30th day of May 2017.


 


	 	COBBOLO LIMITED
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Victor Amirov
	 	 	Authorized Officer



 


ACKNOWLEDGED
AND AGREED:


 


	QPAGOS	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
    Gaston Pereira	 
	 	Authorized
    Officer