alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
10.10


 


Quest
Patent Research Corporation

19 Fortune Lane

Jericho, New York 11753

516-364-3500 


 


August 11,
2010 


 


Mr. Alex
W. "Pete" Hart


P. O. Box
3398 


Rancho Santa
Fe, CA 92067


 


Dear Pete:



 


This
letter sets forth the conditions of your Consulting Agreement with Quest Patent Research Corporation, which will be formalized
in an Agreement dated August 10, 2010.


 


Your
duties will be to use your best efforts to locate and approach appropriate organizations to participate in Quest's Q Card project.
This will include introducing Quest and assisting in completing agreements with all such institutions.


 


You
will receive options to purchase, at a price of $.001 per share, 5 million shares of Quest stock which can be exercised at any
time during the five-year Agreement either on a cash or cashless basis.


 


The Consulting
Agreement will be in effort until December 31, 2015, 


 


The
Consulting Agreement can be terminated by either party with 30 days notice. However, if Quest terminates the agreement, you will
have two years from the date of such termination to exercise your options.


 


Expenses
incurred in performance of your duties will be mutually agreed upon and reimbursed when Quest is financially able to do so.


 


In
addition, compensation will be mutually agreed upon if any efforts on your part result in Quest securing financing for any patents
in its portfolio.


 


Your signature
below will acknowledge acceptance of these conditions.


 


We are pleased to have you on board again and look forward
to working with you. Sincerely, 


 


Herbert
M. Reichlin Chief Executive Officer 


 


 


	Sincerely,	 	Accepted:
	 	 	 
	/s/ Herbert M. Reichlin	 	/s/ Alex W. “Pete” Hart
	Herbert M. Reichlin	 	Alex W. “Pete” Hart
	Chief Executive Officer
#### Dolores Gagliardi, Appellant, v Walmart Stores, Inc., Respondent.

[860 NYS2d 207]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered April 24, 2007, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A landowner has a duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe manner *(see Basso v Miller,*40 NY2d 233 [1976]). However, a landowner has no duty to protect or warn against an open and obvious condition, which, as a matter of law, is not inherently dangerous *(see Sclafani v Washington Mut.,*36 AD3d 682 [2007]; *Tenenbaum v Best 21 Ltd.,*15 AD3d 646 [2005]; *Jang Hee Lee v Sung Whun Oh,*3 AD3d 473 [2004]; *Cupo v Karfunkel,*1 AD3d 48 [2003]).

Here, the defendant submitted evidence sufficient to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the box containing an unassembled chest of dresser drawers, which was placed in the aisle of its store and allegedly caused the plaintiffs injuries, was open and obvious, not inherently dangerous, and not a proximate cause of the accident *(see Espinoza v Hemar Supermarket, Inc.,*43 AD3d 855 [2007]; *Kaufmann v Lerner N.Y., Inc.,*41 AD3d 660 [2007]; *Bernth v King Kullen Grocery Co., Inc.,*36 AD3d 844 [2007]; *Cupo v Karfunkel,*1 AD3d 48 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Lifson, J.P, Miller, Dillon and Eng, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Boodlerine Persaud, Appellant.

[667 NYS2d 268]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered October 13, 1995, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and petit larceny (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction for burglary in the second degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

As correctly conceded by the People, count one of the indictment, charging the defendant with burglary in the second degree, was rendered duplicitous when the People presented evidence regarding two separate burglaries in the same period *314
      *(see, People v Davila,*198 AD2d 371; *People v Stanley,*173 AD2d 658). Therefore, the conviction on that count must be reversed, and that count of the indictment must be dismissed *(see,*CPL 200.30 [1]; *People v Keindl,*68 NY2d 410).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of two counts of petit larceny beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21792]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than October 24, 2017.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. Susan Schardt, Kearney, Nebraska, individually, and as co-
trustee of the following trusts: Brian Schardt Trust No. 2; the 
Christina Nokelby Trust No. 2; the Kimberly Schardt Porter Trust No. 2; 
and the Rebecca Rathjen Trust No. 2, and as a member of the Schardt 
Family Group; to acquire shares of Bank Management, Inc., Wahoo, 
Nebraska and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First Bank of 
Nebraska, Wahoo, Nebraska.
    2. Susan Schardt, Kearney, Nebraska, individually, and as co-
trustee of the following trusts: Brian Schardt Trust No. 2; the 
Christina Nokelby Trust No. 2; the Kimberly Schardt Porter Trust No. 2; 
and the Rebecca Rathjen Trust No. 2; to acquire voting shares of 
Exchange Company, Kearney, Nebraska, and thereby indirectly acquire 
voting shares of Exchange Bank, Gibbon, Nebraska.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior 
Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Robert G. Good, Corrales, New Mexico; and Robert G. Good, M. 
Carolyn Good, Los Ranchos, New Mexico, the Good Living Trust/Family 
Trust, Los Ranchos, New Mexico, Cynthia Alysce Good, Andover, 
Massachusetts, the 2005 Natalie Grace Good Trust, Andover, 
Massachusetts, and Thomas Cody Graves, the Lisa L. Graves Heritage 
Trust, the Cody Clark Graves Heritage Trust, and the Debra L. Graves 
Bridges Heritage Trust, all of Goldthwaite, Texas, as a group acting in 
concert (the Good-Graves Family Group); to retain voting shares of 
Goldthwaite Bancshares, Inc., Goldthwaite, Texas, and thereby retain 
shares of Mills County State Bank, Goldthwaite, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 4, 
2017.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2017-21792 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Carmichael, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 866]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed (see, *People v Saunders,*190 AD2d 1092, 1093, *lv denied*81 NY2d 1019). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 7th Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, I, David Szostak, hereby certify
that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PetroAlgae Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PetroAlgae Inc.



|                  |  |                                                      
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David Szostak
|Name: Title:      |  | David Szostak President (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: March 31, 2009

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Order entered March 19, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 01384
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF K .V.K., A CHILD On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 12
- 19679 

### O RD ER
T he reporter’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated December 2, 2014, we notified the official court reporter for the 256th Judicial District Court that the reporter’s record was overdue. We directed the court reporter to file the record within thirty days. To date, we have not received any response. Accordingly, we ORDER Court Reporter Glenda Johnson to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, either (1) the reporter’s record; (2) written verification that no hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant has not requested the record. We notify appellant that if we receive verification she has not requested the reporter’s record, we will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c)

. /s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT

|I Madhu Poomalil certify that:
|------------------------------
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              
|                              

|DATE:  May   12, 2006 | By: | /s/ Madhu Poomalil     
|--------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                      |     |                        
|                      |     | Madhu Poomalil         
|                      |     | Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Francisco Cordero, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 863]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Wetzel, J.), rendered April 23, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), burglary in the first degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and resisting arrest, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 85 [1982]).

Rivera, J.P, Dickerson, Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.
EX-10.2



 EXHIBIT 10.2 

SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION 
  

					
	 Annual Retainer
	  	$	65,000	(1)
	 Annual Equity Award
	  	$	120,000	(2)
	 Chair of the Board
	  	$	120,000	 
	 Committee Annual Cash Retainers:
	  			
	 Audit Committee Chair
	  	$	15,000	 
	 Audit Committee Member
	  	$	5,000	 
	 Compensation and Personnel Committee Chair
	  	$	15,000	 
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chair
	  	$	10,000	 

  

	(1)	The annual retainer is payable in cash or restricted stock units, at the election of the non-employee director. 


	(2)	The annual equity award is payable in the form of restricted stock units.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2988 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2988

              For the relief of Fernando Javier Cervantes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 19, 2009

  Mr. Filner introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Fernando Javier Cervantes.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF, DENIAL OF ADMISSION TO, 
              FERNANDO JAVIER CERVANTES.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding sections 212(a) and 237(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, Fernando Javier Cervantes may not be 
removed or deported from the United States, or denied admission to the 
United States, by reason of any act of his that is a ground for removal 
or denial of admission and is reflected in the records of the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice, or 
the Visa Office of the Department of State, on the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (b) Rescission of Outstanding Order of Removal or Deportation.--The 
Attorney General shall rescind any outstanding order of removal or 
deportation, or any finding of deportability or removability, that has 
been entered against Fernando Javier Cervantes by reason of any act 
described in subsection (a).
    (c) Permanent Residence Status.--Notwithstanding any order 
terminating the status of Fernando Javier Cervantes as an alien 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act he shall be considered lawfully 
admitted for permanent residence as of the date on which such status 
first was granted, and such status shall be considered not to have 
changed between such date and the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (d) Establishment of Good Moral Character.--Notwithstanding section 
101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, any act described in 
subsection (a) may not be considered in determining whether Fernando 
Javier Cervantes is, or during any period has been, a person of good 
moral character for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Augusto Brigido Saavedra CALDERON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74614.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.

Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Augusto Brigido Saavedra Calderon, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Saavedra Calderon’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than five years after the BIA’s September 5, 2002, order dismissing the underlying appeal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Saavedra Calderon failed to demonstrate that he acted with the due diligence re*732quired to warrant equitable tolling, *see Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Edith Antonia SCHWARTZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-74292.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 10, 2011.

Ian Silverberg, Esquire, Hardy Law Group, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.

Juria L. Jones, Trial, Edward C. Durant, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Edith Antonia Schwartz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction over Schwartz’s contention that the BIA should have tolled the filing deadline for her motion because she failed to raise that issue before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<Page>


                                                                   Exhibit 21.1

PRI Automation, Inc.
List of Subsidiaries as of September 30, 2001

All of the following subsidiaries are included in the consolidated financial
statements of the Company.

<Table>

<S>                                                    <C>                       <C>
Chiptronix Handling Systems, GmbH                      Switzerland               100%
Commotion Technology, Inc.                             Massachusetts             100%
Equipe Japan, Ltd.                                     Japan                     100%
Interval Logic Corporation                             Massachusetts              99%
PRI Automation, CA Inc.                                California                100%
PRI Automation (Canada), Inc.                          Canada                    100%
PRI Automation GmbH                                    Germany                   100%
PRI Automation Ireland, Inc.                           Ireland                   100%
PRI Automation Israel, Inc.                            Israel                    100%
PRI Automation Korea, Inc.                             Korea                     100%
PRI Automation, LTD                                    United Kingdom            100%
PRI Automation Pte, Ltd                                Singapore                 100%
PRI Automation, SARL                                   France                    100%
PRI Automation Taiwan, Ltd.                            Taiwan                    100%
PRI Korea, Ltd.                                        Korea                      80%
PRI Malaysia                                           Malaysia                  100%
Promis Systems Corp Singapore Pte. Ltd.                Singapore                 100%
Promis Systems Corporation Ltd.                        Hong Kong                 100%
Promis Systems Corporation (U.K.) Ltd.                 United Kingdom            100%
Promis Systems GmbH I GR.                              Germany                   100%
Promis Taiwan                                          Taiwan                    100%
WaferState Controls, Inc.                              Texas                     100%

</Table>
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                      |  |  |  |                                                         
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ DARREN RICHARDSON                                   
|                      |  |  |  | Darren Richardson, President and Chief Executive Officer



The foregoing certifications are being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 3, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00314

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.M., ET AL., CHILDR EN

,

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- PA

- 02201

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee's motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. Time is

extended to September 28, 2015.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 3rd day of September, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court