alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 0901

- 17T3 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v. ALLAN R. COOPER, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________

Submitted September 9, 2019

– Decided Before Judges S abatino and S umners. On appeal from t he Superior Cou rt of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer Count y , Indictment No. 15

- 04

- 05 5 4. Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Jay L. Wilensky, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, of counsel and on the brief). Angelo J. Onofri, Mercer County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Christopher Michael Malikschmitt, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the internet , this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R

. 1:36

- 3.

September 18, 20192 A

- 0901

- 17T3

After pleading guilty to certain persons not to possess a firearm, N.J.S.A. 2C:39

- 7(b) , defendant Allan R. Cooper appeals an order den ying his motion to suppress drugs and a gun , discarded while trying to avoid police apprehension, in the course of a warrantless arrest and search. R. 3:5

- 7(d) . Defendant's motion to suppress hearing was heard together with the similar motion to suppress drugs and a gun filed by co

- defendant Darrell M. Hall. The State claimed defendant and Hall were openly selling drugs together on a porch at a residence in a Trenton neighborhood that was a known narcotics area.
D ef endant raises the following argument:
THE MOTION COURT’S DENIAL OF SUPPRESS ION WAS NOT BASED ON SUFFICIENT CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, AND ACCORDINGLY MUST BE REVERSED. U.S. CONST. , AMENDS. IV, XIV; N.J. CONST. (1947), ART. 1, PAR 7. In his merits brief, d efendant attacks the motion judge's credibility findings, arguing the police could not have seen the alleged drug

- selling activity given
their location and poor lighting conditions. Defendant also contends that if the police were located where the y claimed , their presence would have been obvious to the individuals allegedly seen buying drugs and would have curtailed any drug dealing.3 A

- 0901

- 17T3

We incorporate by reference the facts and legal analysis set forth in State v. Hall , No. A

- 1321

- 17 ( App. Div. 201 9 ) , our companion opinion rendered today , in which we rejected Hall's challenge to the judge's fact

- finding and reasoning and upheld the warrantless arrest and search that resulted in defendant and Hall's guilty pleas. We affirm the judge's denial of defe ndant's motion to suppress for the same reasons we articulated in Hall

. Affirmed.
[No. 35109-9-II.

Division Two.

August 21, 2007.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Janell Kay Henderson, *Respondent,*and Randy Gene Henderson, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Clark County, No. 04-3-00270-0, Roger A. Bennett, J., entered June 16, 2006. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Hunt, J., concurred in by Bridgewater and Quinn-Brintnall, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                            1765
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    24370
<ALLOWANCES>                                       725
<INVENTORY>                                      21836
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4859
<PP&E>                                           57023
<DEPRECIATION>                                    6059
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  147495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            30279
<BONDS>                                          60846
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       41779
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    147495
<SALES>                                          87827
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 87827
<CGS>                                            67736
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    78912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   738
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4901
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (190)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5091
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5091
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5091
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5091
        

</TABLE>
# FY16_Q1

# FY16_Q2

# FY16_Q3

# FY16_Q4

# Serotypes - User Notes
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2824

To modify the project for flood control, James River Basin, Richmond,

Virginia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 2, 1993

Mr. BLILEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To modify the project for flood control, James River Basin,

Richmond, Virginia.

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

3 SECTION 1. JAMES RIVER BASIN, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

4 The project for flood control, James River Basin,

5 Richmond, Virginia, authorized by section 401(a) of the

6 Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat.

7 4126) is modified to authorize the Secretary of the Army

8 to construct the project at a total cost of $134,000,000,

9 with an estimated Federal cost of $100,500,000 and an

10 estimated non-Federal cost of $33,500,000.
2

•HR 2824 IH

Æ
EX-10.4





 Exhibit 10.4 

July 8, 2020 
 Mark Arian 

c/o Korn Ferry 
 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2600 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 
  

	Re:	 Employment Letter dated as of March 17, 2017 between Korn Ferry (“Korn Ferry”) and Mark Arian
(“Employment Letter”) and the Letter Agreement dated as of April 14, 2020 


 Dear Mark: 

Reference is made to the Letter Agreement, dated April 14, 2020, between you and Korn Ferry, which amended the applicable terms and conditions of your
Employment Letter (the “Employment Letter Amendment”). This letter amends the Employment Letter Amendment by deleting the reference to “August 31, 2020” and substituting in its stead “December 31, 2020”, having the
effect of extending the temporary reduction of your annual rate of base salary described in the Employment Letter Amendment through December 31, 2020. It is agreed that the extension of the temporary salary reduction above shall not, alone, be
a basis for Good Reason or any constructive termination claim and does not constitute Good Reason under your Employment Letter. Except as expressly modified by this letter, the terms and conditions set forth in the Employment Letter and the
Employment Letter Amendment remain in full force and effect and are incorporated herein by reference. 
 Please indicate your acceptance of this letter
agreement amending your Employment Letter and the Employment Letter Amendment by signing and dating a copy of this letter agreement in the spaces provided below and returning such signed and dated copy to me. I thank you for your continued
commitment to Korn Ferry. 
  

							
		 		 		 	Sincerely,
				
		 		 		 	 /s/ Jonathan Kuai

		 		 		 	Jonathan Kuai

 ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO: 
  

							
	 /s/ Mark Arian
	 		 		 	 July 8,
2020                                        


	Mark Arian	 		 		 	 Date of Signature
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2968 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2968

To amend the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to clarify whistleblower 
            rights and protections, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 24, 2018

Mr. Durbin (for Ms. Duckworth) introduced the following bill; which was 
    read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 to clarify whistleblower 
            rights and protections, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Energy and Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission Whistleblower Protection Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF PERSON.

    Section 211(a)(2) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 
U.S.C. 5851(a)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (G) as 
        clauses (i) through (vii), respectively, and indenting the 
        clauses appropriately;
            (2) in the matter preceding clause (i) (as so 
        redesignated), by striking the paragraph designation and all 
        that follows through ``includes--'' and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(2) Definitions.--In this section:
                    ``(A) Employer.--The term `employer' includes--''; 
                and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Person.--The term `person' includes--
                            ``(i) a person (as defined in section 11 of 
                        the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
                        2014));
                            ``(ii) the Commission; and
                            ``(iii) the Department of Energy.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.12
      ARTICLE I
 Section 1.1
 Section 1.2




---



##### 



Section 1.3
  ARTICLE II
 Section 2.1
 Section 2.2
 Section 2.3
 Section 2.4
 Section 2.5
 Section 2.6




---



##### 



TRAVELPORT LIMITED/s/ Eric J. BockName:
    Eric J. BockTitle:
    Executive Vice President and
General Counsel ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC./s/ Marsha C. WilliamsName:
    Marsha C. WilliamsTitle:
    Senior Vice President, Chief
Financial Officer
Exhibit 31

                                                           [LOGO] IndymacBank(R)

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Blair Abernathy, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D
      required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
      Form 10-K of IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR11 (the "Exchange Act
      periodic reports");

2.    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
      whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
      state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
      the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
      information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered
      by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4.    Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s) required in
      this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in
      the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
      obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5.    All of the reports on assessment of compliance-with servicing criteria for
      asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
      assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
      securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item
      1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been
      included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in
      this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such
      reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company and Newport Management Corporation.

Date: March 26, 2008



/s/ Blair Abernathy
-----------------------
Blair Abernathy
Executive Vice President
(Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor)
Order filed January 6, 2022



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No s . 11

- 2 1

- 00 145

- C R & 11

- 21

- 00200

- CR

__________ DANIEL RAY GARCIA , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 106th District Court Gaines County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 19

- 5086 & 16

- 4669

O R D E R
We have reviewed the “Motion to Recuse the Justices of the 11 th Court of Appeals” filed in this cause on December 1 5, 20 21 , as it pertains to seeking the
recusal of Justice W. Stacy Trotter

. Pursuant to Rule 16.3(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Justice Trotter has considered the motion in chambers.
Justice Trotter has found no reason to recuse himself and, pursuant to Rule 16.3(b), has certified the issue to the entire court for a determination by the other justices of2 this court. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 16.3(b). Chief Justice John M. Bailey and Justice
W. Bruce Wi lliams have decided the matter without Justice Trotter ’s participation

. The recusal of appellate judges is controlled by Rule 16 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The grounds for recusal of an appellate court justice are provided in the Texas Rul es of Civil Procedure. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 16.2; see T EX

. R.
C IV

. P . 18b. We find no reason for Justice Trotter to recuse himself and hold that none of the grounds set out in Rule 18b are applicable to Justice Trotter in this case.
See T EX

. R. C IV

. P . 18b ; see also Manges v. Guerra , 673 S.W.2d 180, 185 (Tex. 1984); McCullough v. Kitzman , 50 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2001, pet. denied). The request for the recusal of Justice W. Stacy Trotter is denied.

PER CURIAM

January 6 , 202 2 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C. J., and Williams, J.

Trotter , J., not participating.

1 A copy of Justice Trotter ’s written certification is attached to this order.
Exhibit 15.1




[ERNST & YOUNG
LETTERHEAD]














CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form F-3 (No. 333-164306) of OceanFreight Inc. and in the related
Prospectuses, of our reports dated March 9, 2010, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of OceanFreight Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form
20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2009.





/s/
Ernst & Young (Hellas) Certified Auditors Accountants S.A.





March 9,
2010


Athens,
Greece.
# ImportVolume
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - 40 CFR Part 72

### CFR Correction

                    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 72 to 80, revised as of July 1, 2000, § 72.2 is corrected by removing the definition of                     *Protocol 1 gas*                     and by adding the definition of                     *Standard reference material*                     or                     *SRM*                     to read as follows:                

§ 72.2

* * * * *

*Standard reference material*                         or                         *SRM*                         means a calibration gas mixture issued and certified by NIST as having specific known chemical or physical property values.                    

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01-55526 Filed 8-14-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
#### SMITH *v.*WILKINS *et al.*

Submitted March 2,

Decided March 28, 1901.

Habeas corpus. Before Judge Henry. Henry superior court. January 26, 1901.

*F. M. Smith*and *Thomas L. Bishop,*for plaintiff.

*John S. Qleaton,*for defendants.

Cobb, J.

1. That one was counsel for one of the parties to a habeas corpus proceeding involving the custody of a child will not prevent him from testifying as a witness in a subsequent controversy between same parties as to the custody of the same child, concerning the good character, station in life, and financial ability of the parties who were in the former case the adversaries of his client.

2. In the present case there was no assignment of error raising any question other than the one dealt with in the preceding note.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., absent.*
Exhibit 99




|For immediate release: | Contact:                   
|---------------------- | ---------------------------
|August 2, 2006         | Bryant Haskins 212-733-8719
|                       | Paul Fitzhenry 212-733-4637

> **U.S. APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS LIPITOR’S BASIC
>       PATENT
>       WITH EXCLUSIVITY MAINTAINED IN U.S. UNTIL MARCH, 2010
>       - - -*****Appeals Court Also Invalidates Second Patent 
>       on Technical Defect*** **- - -*****Pfizer Pursuing Options For Further Review 
>       of Decision on Second Patent***
>     NEW YORK, August 2 -- Pfizer Inc said today that a panel of the Court of
>       Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld the exclusivity of the main patent
>       covering atorvastatin, the active ingredient in Lipitor, maintaining patent
>       protection for Lipitor in the U.S. until March 2010.
>     The Appeals Court also ruled that a second patent (U.S. 5,273,995) at issue
>       in the lawsuit covering the calcium salt of atorvastatin is invalid on technical
>       grounds. That patent would have expired in June 2011. 
>       The Appeals Court ruled in a lawsuit brought by Pfizer against the generic
>       manufacturer Ranbaxy Ltd. The court held that Ranbaxy's generic atorvastatin
>       product would infringe the company’s basic patent (U.S. 4,681,893)
>       broadly covering atorvastatin.
>     "While we are pleased that the court has affirmed that our basic patent
>       is valid and infringed, we are disappointed in the decision on the '995
>       patent," said Peter Richardson, Pfizer's senior vice president, associate
>       general counsel and chief of intellectual property. "The decision turned
>       on a technical defect in the patent. There is a process for correcting such
>       defects in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Pfizer plans to pursue
>       that option."
>     In addition, either party may seek review of the decision by the full U.S.
>       Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
>     # # # # #
>     **
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 on Form 10-Q of Merrill Lynch Preferred
Capital Trust I and Merrill Lynch Preferred Funding I, L.P. (the "Partnership")
for the period ended June 25, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John J. Fosina,
Controller of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., the General Partner of the Partnership,
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; and

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




                              MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING I, L.P.

                              By:  MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., as General Partner


                              By:  /s/ JOHN J. FOSINA
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                              Name:    John J. Fosina *
                              Title:   Controller, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.








Dated: August 4, 2004
__________________

*  John J. Fosina functions as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer
   and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership for purposes of Section 906
   of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

February 6 , 2014.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00914

- CR

EX PARTE MARVIN R. Z EPEDA , Appellant

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1354291A

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The trial court denied appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus and

a ppellant filed a timely notice of appeal

. On January 27, 2014, appellant filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal. The motion is not signed by appellant as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). However, a ppellant’s counsel avers that appellant has been deported to her cou ntry of nationality, El Salvador, and no longer wishes to2

pursue this appeal. Counsel stated that “All facts recited in this motion are within the personal knowledge of the counsel signing this motion[.]”

B ased on counsel’s statement that it is within his personal knowledge that appellant has been deported to El Salvador and no longer wishes to pursue this appeal, we conclude that good cause exists to suspend the operation of Rule 42.2(a) in this case. See Tex. R. App

. P. 2.
Accordingly, we dismiss the app eal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Brown

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Order entered November 5, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01345-CV

IN RE JOHN JEFFREY MCCAFFERTY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 08-05932-R

ORDER

Before Justices Francis, Myers and Schenck

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. 

We DENY as unnecessary relator’s motion for leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus. 

We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE