alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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 the operations                  of the                  Company.  |

| By:    | /s/                  Anthony Shupin                 |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Anthony                  Shupin                     |   |
|   | President,                  Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | October                  16, 2008                   |   |

----

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (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 the operations of                the                Company.  |

| By:    | /s/                Michael J. Pellegrino                                      |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   Michael                J. Pellegrino                              |   |
|   |                      Senior Vice President & CFO |   |
|   |                  October 16, 2008                                        |   |
#### In the Matter of Stephanie N., Also Known as Stephanie Marie N. T., and Others, Children Alleged to be Abandoned. Richard Allen Center on Life, Inc., Respondent; Ricardo N., Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 124]

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered on or about August 9, 1995, terminating respondent’s parental rights to the subject children upon a finding of abandonment, and transferring their custody and guardianship to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent’s claim that his incarceration prevented him from communicating with the children and the agency for the statutory six-month period (Social Services Law § 384-b [4] [b]; [5] [a]) is contradicted by his admissions that he knew the agency’s name, was able to make telephone calls while in jail, and had in fact called other members of his family *(see, Matter of Anthony M.,*195 AD2d 315). Nor is the refusal of the children’s foster parent to allow respondent to see or speak with the children without respondent first contacting the agency an acceptable excuse *(compare, Matter of Murrell,*79 AD2d 866). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Wallaeh, Williams and Andrias, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.2**

CONSENTOF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8No. 333-131156) pertaining to the 2005****Employee RestrictedStock Plan****of Polymer Group, Inc.,(Form S-8 No. 333-121252) pertaining to the 2003****EmployeeStock Option Plan****and (Form S-8No. 333-121254) pertaining to the 2004 Restricted Stock Plan for Directors****of Polymer Group, Inc. of our report dated March 23,2005, with respect to the 2004 consolidated financial statements and scheduleof Polymer Group, Inc, included in the Annual Report (Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A)for the year ended December 30, 2006.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Greenville, South Carolina

April 5, 2007

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dustin C. Hill, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 516]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), rendered February 28, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with various crimes after he confessed to strangling an unknown male and causing his death. In satisfaction of the indictment, he pleaded guilty to the crime of murder in the second degree and was to be sentenced under the terms of the plea agreement to 18 years to life in prison. During the course of the proceedings relating to the indictment, defendant was found to be in possession of a razor blade while in jail and agreed to be prosecuted by superior court information charging him with promoting prison contraband in the first degree. He pleaded guilty to this charge and agreed to waive his right to appeal. Under the terms of the plea agreement, he was to be sentenced to 2 to 6 years in prison, to run concurrently to the prison term imposed on the murder conviction. Defendant was sentenced accordingly and he now appeals.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the 18-year to life sentence imposed upon his conviction of murder in the second degree is *1192harsh and excessive. Preliminarily, we note that, although defendant waived his right to appeal during the plea proceedings and executed a written waiver, it is not clear from the record if the waiver was part of the plea agreement relating to the murder conviction. Regardless, even if it was, we do not find that the waiver was valid inasmuch as defendant was not advised that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the other rights that he was forfeiting by pleading guilty *(see People v Watson,*115 AD3d 1016 [2014]; *People v Bressard,*112 AD3d 988, 988 [2013], *lv denied*22 NY3d 1137 [2014]). Hence, he is not precluded from challenging the severity of the sentence.

Turning to the merits, we do not find that the challenged sentence was either harsh or excessive. The sentence is justified by the violent and senseless nature of the crime, combined with the fact that it was the same one agreed to by defendant under the plea agreement. Indeed, we find no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice *(see People v Weiskopff,*20 AD3d 776, 776 [2005]; *People v Parson,*209 AD2d 882, 884 [1994], *lv denied*84 NY2d 1014 [1994]). Therefore, we decline to disturb it.

Peters, PJ., Stein, McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         November 30-December 1, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Embassy Suites Hotel, 4300 Military Road, Washington, DC 20015.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Cathy J. Wedeen, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, OD, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01-G, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6878,                         *wedeenc@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 4, 2017.

Michelle Trout,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-21831 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**212 CAF 13-02243**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF RICARDO SUAREZ AND LAURA SUAREZ, PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MELISSA WILLIAMS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, AND ERNESTO SUAREZ, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

MELVIN & MELVIN, PLLC, SYRACUSE (CHRISTOPHER M. JUDGE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS.

PATRICK J. HABER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, SYRACUSE.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Michelle Pirro Bailey, J.), entered March 26, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, awarded petitioners Laura Suarez and Ricardo Suarez and respondent Ernesto Suarez joint legal custody of the subject child. The order was reversed by opinion and order of this Court entered March 20, 2015 (128 AD3d 20), and petitioners Ricardo Suarez and Laura Suarez on June 9, 2015 were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order of this Court (25 NY3d 1063), and the Court of Appeals on December 16, 2015 reversed the order and remitted the case to this Court for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of the Court of Appeals (___ NY3d ___ [Dec. 16, 2015]).
Now, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals,
It is hereby ORDERED that, upon remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, awarded joint legal custody of her child to petitioner grandparents and respondent father. We previously held that the grandparents failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to deprive the mother of custody of the child, but the Court of Appeals reversed our order and held that they had made such a showing ( Matter of Suarez v Williams , 128 AD3d 20, revd ___ NY3d ___ [Dec. 16, 2015]). The Court remitted the matter to us to consider issues raised but not reached by us on the appeal. We now affirm.**-2- 212 CAF 13-02243** 
Contrary to the mother’s contention, Family Court’s determination that it was in the child’s best interests to remain in the primary physical custody of the grandparents is supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record, and we will not disturb it ( see Matter of Misty D.B. v David M.S. , 38 AD3d 1317, 1317). We have considered the mother’s remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit.

Entered: December 31, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement, dated October 9, 2015 (the “Employment
Agreement”), is made by and between DCT Industrial Trust Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”) and Philip L. Hawkins (the “Executive”), effective as of April 29, 2018 

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7.6 of the Employment Agreement, the Company and the Executive desire to amend certain terms of the
Employment Agreement as set forth in this Amendment; and 
 WHEREAS, unless the context requires otherwise, capitalized terms used but not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Employment Agreement. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the
promises and mutual covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is mutually acknowledged, the Company and the Executive agree as follows: 

1. Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 

“Term. The Company hereby employs the Executive, and the Executive hereby accepts such employment, for a four-year term commencing
on October 10, 2015 and continuing through October 9, 2019, unless sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 or 5 (the period during which the Executive is employed hereunder being referred to as the
“Term”).” 
 2. The last sentence of Section 6.1(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety as follows: 
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, if employment terminates upon or after the scheduled expiration of the Term
(without any early termination under Section 4 or 5), other than in connection with a Qualified Retirement, then the restrictions of this Section 6.1(a) shall not extend beyond the date of termination of employment.” 

3. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Employment Agreement continues in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and the terms
thereof shall govern this Amendment to the same extent as if fully set forth herein. 
 4. This Amendment may be executed in one or more
counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement, and shall become effective when one or more such counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other party. 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date first above
written. 
  

			
	COMPANY:
	
	DCT INDUSTRIAL TRUST INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John G. Spiegleman

		 	Name: John G. Spiegleman
		 	Title: Executive Vice President
	
	EXECUTIVE:
	
	 /s/ Philip L. Hawkins

	Philip L. Hawkins



  
 [Signature Page to
Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement]
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

June 13, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133527 & (13) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

In re: Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

The Honorable JEANETTE O’BANNER-OWENS, 

36th District Court 

 Justices 

 SC: 133527

 JTC: Formal Complaint No. 80 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of May 16, 2007, the Judicial Tenure Commission was directed to 

provide the respondent with copies of the eight-page letter or letters that the Commission 

sent to the physicians who examined the respondent pursuant to MCR 9.207(D), and the 

respondent was directed to provide an updated report from Dr. Aronson and any 

additional reports and supplemental briefing that the respondent deemed necessary. On 

order of the Court, the updated report and the respondent’s supplemental brief having 

been received, the petition for interim suspension is again considered, and it is DENIED. 

p0613 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

June 13, 2007 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                          77,360
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  352,222
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    739,334
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,231,065
<PP&E>                                       1,038,045
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,869,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,409,302
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          350,740
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,149
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,515,334
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,869,901
<SALES>                                      1,585,853
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,585,853
<CGS>                                        1,427,486
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,427,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               274,034
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,614
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (164,281)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (164,281)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the  quarterly  period ended June 30, 2002 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Edward Dickinson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

         /s/ Edward Dickinson
         ----------------------------
             Edward Dickinson
             Chief Financial Officer
             August 13, 2002
#### Steven F. Vavruick, Sr., Appellant, v Price Co. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[666 NYS2d 515]

—In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered February 13, 1997, which, *inter alia,*granted the respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that, at the time of the decedent’s accident, the respondents were the lessees of certain premises located at 605 Rockaway Turnpike, in Lawrence, New York. The evidentiary submissions of the respondents established that the critical allegation as to their status as lessees of this property was “manifestly false” *(CD Music Co. v Bassline, Inc.,*242 AD2d 654; *see also, Jacobs v Haber,*232 AD2d 372; *O’Dette v Guzzardi,*204 AD2d 291). The plaintiff failed to demonstrate any alternative basis upon which the respondents *559might be held liable for the decedent’s injury and subsequent death. The Supreme Court therefore properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against them *(see, Jacobs v Haber, supra; see also, Pebble Cove Homeowners' Assn. v Fidelity N. Y.,*153 AD2d 843). Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman, Krausman and Lerner, JJ., concur.