alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
appellant does not challenge the statute as unconstitutional. We are not 

convinced that the sentence is unreasonably disproportionate to the 

gravity of the offense so as to violate the proscription against cruel and 

unusual punishment. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 29 (2003) 

(plurality opinion); Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) 

(plurality opinion). 

To the extent appellant argues that the district court abused 

its discretion in sentencing appellant as it did, we discern no abuse of 

discretion in this instance. Houk v. State, 103 Nev. 659, 664, 747 P.2d 

1376, 1379 (1987); Silks v. State, 92 Nev. 91, 94, 545 P.2d 1159, 1161 

(1976) (recognizing that this court will not interfere with sentence imposed 

"[sic, long as the record does not demonstrate prejudice resulting from 

consideration of information or accusations founded on facts supported 

only by impalpable or highly suspect evidence"). 

Having considered appellant's arguments and concluded that 

they lack merit, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

,J. J 

Hardesty 

Parragu Cherry 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
ffai [WM EVIEROMM, ` L''" T;R:ri.0435"7-70 IIUM 

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge 

Clark County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3
exhibit101.htm -- Converted by SEC Publisher, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing





EXHIBIT 10.1

TERMINATION AGREEMENT

 

     This TERMINATION AGREEMENT is entered into on November 2, 2007, by and between Comdata Network, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Originator”), and Comdata Funding Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“CFC” and, together with the Originator, the “Companies”), with respect to that certain Receivables Sale Agreement, dated as of June 24, 2002, between the Originator and CFC (the “First Step Agreement”). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein are used with the meanings attributed thereto in the First Step Agreement.

     By their signatures below, effective on November 2, 2007, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Companies hereby agree that (a) all sales and contributions of Receivables and Related Security under the First Step Agreement will cease, and (b) each of the Transaction Documents (including without limitation, the First Step Agreement and the Performance Undertaking) is hereby terminated except for provisions thereof which expressly survive termination thereof.


	COMDATA FUNDING CORPORATION 
	 
	 
	By: /s/ David B. Kuhnau                                 
	Name:  David B. Kuhnau 
	Title:     Vice President and Assistant Treasurer 
	 
	 
	COMDATA NETWORK, INC. 
	 
	 
	By:    /s/ J. Randall Pitman 
	Name:  J. Randall Pitman 
	Title:     Executive Vice President, Finance
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 11

- 00769

- CV Ronald Dwayne WALKER , Appellant

v. Ben G. MARIN , Appellee
From the County Court at Law No. 2 , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 372125 Honorable David J. Rodriguez , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 25, 2012
DISMISSED Appellant, Ronald Dwayne Walker , appealed the trial court’s judgment in Cause Number
372125 . Appellant’s brief was originally due December 23 , 2011. We granted appellant an extension until January 23, 2012 to file his brief. Because appellant failed to file his brief we ordered appellant to file, on or before March 16, 20 1 2 , his appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining his failure to timely file the brief. We advised appellant that if he failed to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we would di smiss the appeal04

- 11

- 00769

- CV

- 2

- for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a); see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (court may dismiss appeal because appellant has failed to comply with a court order within the time provided). Appellant has not filed a brief or the wr itten response ordered by the court.
We therefore order this appeal dismissed. We further order that appellee recover his costs in this appeal from appellant.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                   CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned officer of Moldflow Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies
that to his knowledge the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 to which this certification is being
furnished as an exhibit (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided solely
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item
601(b)(32)") promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item
601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of
Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any
filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that
the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

Date: November 9, 2005

                                          /s/ CHRISTOPHER L. GORGONE
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Name:   Christopher L. Gorgone
                                          Title:  Executive Vice President of
                                                  Finance and Chief Financial
                                                  Officer
<PAGE>   1


                                 EXHIBIT 10 (r)



1999 EXECUTIVE CASH BONUS POOL
------------------------------

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that a cash bonus pool be established for certain of
         the Company's officers for Fiscal 1999 calculated in the aggregate as
         follows:

                 4% of Adjusted Operating Earnings up to $4,650,000
                13% of Adjusted Operating Earnings from $4,650,000 to $6,200,000
                20% of Adjusted Operating Earnings over $6,200,000

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that Adjusted Operating Earnings for this purpose
         shall mean operating income plus the accrual for this executive bonus
         program, plus any nonrecurring charges for the fiscal year (including,
         for example, any charges for closing restaurants), less any
         nonrecurring gains (including, for example, any gain on the sale of
         restaurant assets);

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the cash bonus pool be allocated and paid 40% to
         Mr. Barnum; and 20% to each of Mr. Emerson, Mr. Niegsch, and Mrs.
         Brannigan;

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the cash bonus pool be paid quarterly based on
         estimates and adjusted for the annual amount at the fiscal year-end;

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Company's officers attempt through estimates
         of annual Adjusted Operating Earnings to spread the quarterly bonus
         evenly throughout the four quarters; and

         FURTHER RESOLVED, that the cash bonus pool not be capped.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

IN RE: STACEY G. KELLY Case No.: 20-30212-KRH

Chapter: 13

Trustee: Suzanne E. Wade

NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Movant

v.

STACEY G. KELLY, Defendant

ANSWER TO MOTION OF NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY

COMES NOW the Debtor, Stacey Kelly, by counsel, Seth J. Marks, Esq., of Pagano & Marks, P.C., 

and answers as follows:

1. The Defendant admits the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 of the 

Plaintiff’s Motion.

2. The Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 3, 9, 10a, 11, 11a, 12 of the 

Plaintiff’s Motion.

3. The Defendant does not have sufficient information to either deny or admit the allegations

contained in paragraph 7, 10 of the Plaintiff’s Motion.

4. Movant has not shown the irreparable harm necessary to justify lifting the stay, nor that the 

alleged harm would continue if a payment arrangement, modified plan or modified stay 

where agreed to. Even if the Movant is entitled to relief from the stay, the stay should not 

be terminated. The Court should grant less drastic relief by conditioning or modifying the 

stay.

WHEREFORE, the Debtor prays that the Movant’s motion be dismissed, the Debtor be allowed an 

opportunity to bring the account current, file a modified plan, make good faith payments; and/or that 

the Debtors’ be granted all other relief as this Court deems just and proper including, but not limited to, 

the right modify this Answer to the Motion for Relief from Stay, if necessary.

Respectfully Submitted:

STACEY G. KELLY

By: /s/ Seth J. Marks, Esq.

Counsel for the Debtor
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on Tuesday, August 16, 2022, I mailed the foregoing Answer to Motion for 

Relief from Stay by electronic mail or first class mail, postage pre-paid to all the parties listed 

below and on the attached mailing matrix:

Movant------------------------

Douglas R. Blecki, Jr., Esq.

Silverman Theologou, LLP

11200 Rockville Pike, Ste 520

N. Bethesda, Maryland 20852

Trustee------------------------

Suzanne E. Wade

Chapter 13 Trustee

7202 Glen Forest Drive, Suite 202

Richmond, VA 23226

Debtor-------------------------

Stacey G. Kelly

4209 Seamore St

Richmond, VA 23223

/s/ Seth J. Marks, Esq.

Seth J. Marks, Esq. VSB #75153

Pagano & Marks, P.C.

25 E. Main Street

Richmond, VA 23219

(804) 447-1002
After a review of original response to the ecological risk assessment, it appears that Syngenta’s 

calculation of the mg/kg/day dose level may not have been clearly described, which has led to the 

Agency confusion. The 50 mg a.i./kg –bw/day value used in the preliminary ecological risk assessment 

appears to be a generic default value used in the T-REX model. However, the study report used for this 

risk assessment contains data, which when used to calculate the actual exposures on a mg a.i./kgbw/day basis, provides evidence that the actual time-weighted dose levels to these animals exceeded 

this default value. Therefore, time-weighted average (TWA) dose levels were calculated using group 

mean values for body weight, food consumption, and dietary concentrations (ppm). These calculations 

were conducted as follows:

1. The mean body weight recorded at the end of each dosing week was used in these calculations.

This value was considered conservative, in that a mid-week body weight value is typically 

calculated for use in determining TWA doses. Use of this higher body weight at the end of each 

measurement period results in lower TWA values than would be calculated using a mid-week 

value. 

2. Average food consumption values (g food/animal/day) were extracted from the study report

(Table 5)

3. Duplicate analyses were conducted on a weekly basis on all diets (Appendix H). Therefore, the 

mean analytical values were utilized for diet concentrations rather than the nominal targeted 

value of 1000 ppm.

4. Weekly dose levels were then calculated by dividing the average food consumption 

(g/animal/day) by mean body weight (kg/rat), and multiplied by the analytically determined 

concentrations (ppm) divided by 1000.

Food Consumption (g/day) x Concentration (ppm= mg/kg)

Body weight (kg) x 1000 (g/kg)

Based on the use of these values, the TWA dose levels for the F0 males and females were 70.0 and 84.5 

mg/kg/day, respectively. It is important to note that calculation of the dose for the F1 males using this 

same scenario resulted in a TWA dose of 54.6 mg/kg/day. However, as the 70 mg/kg/day dose level for 

the F0 males was considered an NOAEL, the use of this lower value in the risk assessment is not 

considered appropriate.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 207

 215

 222

 228

 238

 245

 248

 258

 257

 260

 265

 274

 294

 296

 305

 269

 277

 277

 285

 276

 277

 274

 273

 277

 283

 290

 304

 324

 325

 322

 272

 167

 172

 199

 210

 224

 234

 240

 245

 250

 250

 253

 255

 256

 261

 258

 254

 251

 253

 257

 261

 263

 260

 258

 258

 258

 261

 258

 259

 255

 251

 253

 185

 186

 206

 217

 230

 238

 244

 250

 253

 254

 257

 260

 265

 269

 271

 263

 257

 258

 264

 269

 268

 266

 264

 264

 267

 271

 272

 274

 274

 272

 262

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: April 8, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 3,524

 3,447

 3,385

 3,330

 3,287

 3,251

 3,221

 3,198

 3,176

 3,164

 3,167

 3,182

 3,230

 3,314

 3,400

 3,477

 3,528

 3,569

 3,603

 3,634

 3,658

 3,674

 3,685

 3,695

 3,705

 3,716

 3,723

 3,728

 3,731

 3,740

 3,745

 252

 246

 242

 238

 235

 232

 230

 228

 227

 226

 226

 227

 231

 237

 243

 248

 252

 255

 257

 260

 261

 262

 263

 264

 265

 265

 266

 266

 267

 267

 268

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
#### § 668.606 Severability.

If any provision of this subpart or its application to any person, act, or practice is held invalid, the remainder of this part and subpart, and the application of this subpart's provisions to any other person, act, or practice, will not be affected thereby.
§ 33.14 Separation of functions. ( a ) The investigating official, the reviewing official, and any employee or agent of the Department who takes part in investigating, preparing, or presenting a particular case may not, in that case or a factually related case: ( 1 ) Participate in the hearing as the ALJ;
( 2 ) Participate or advise in the initial decision or the review of the initial decision by the Department head, except as a witness or a representative in public proceedings; or
( 3 ) Make the collection of penalties and assessments under 31 U.S.C. 3806.
( b ) The ALJ may not be responsible to, or subject to the supervision or direction of, the investigating official or the reviewing official.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, the representative for the Government may be employed anywhere in the Department, including in the offices of either the investigating official or the reviewing official.
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3809(l)(2))
#### Dorothy A. Wolin, Respondent, v. William Wolin, Appellant.

No opinion. Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT AND SPLITTAIL

August 2002

Note: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG.

Delta Smelt Splittail Pumping

Daily Total Daily Total

Daily Combined Daily Combined In CFS In Acre Feet

DATE Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day

SWP CVP Total Average SWP CVP Total Average

1-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 7489 4365 11853 14854 8657 23511

2-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 6546 4386 10932 12983 8700 21683

3-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 9 7129 4403 11532 14140 8734 22874

4-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 7099 4379 11478 14081 8685 22766

5-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 45 0 45 9 7195 4303 11498 14271 8535 22806

6-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6789 4358 11147 13465 8645 22110

7-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6519 4354 10873 12930 8636 21566

8-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6998 4363 11361 13880 8655 22535

9-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6943 4383 11326 13772 8693 22465

10-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7102 4377 11479 14086 8682 22768

11-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7089 4375 11464 14061 8678 22739

12-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6949 4399 11349 13784 8726 22510

13-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6385 4445 10830 12665 8816 21481

14-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6415 4355 10770 12725 8638 21363

15-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6215 4334 10549 12327 8596 20923

16-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6763 4344 11107 13415 8616 22031

17-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6832 4247 11079 13552 8423 21975

18-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7019 4304 11322 13922 8536 22458

19-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 6909 4257 11166 13704 8443 22147

20-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 12 12 1 6985 4282 11267 13855 8493 22348

21-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6997 4238 11235 13878 8407 22285

22-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7272 4359 11631 14425 8646 23071

23-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7731 4322 12053 15335 8572 23907

24-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7280 4269 11549 14440 8467 22907

25-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7222 4281 11502 14324 8491 22815

26-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7024 4296 11320 13932 8522 22454

27-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6224 4330 10555 12346 8589 20935

28-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5191 4267 9458 10296 8464 18760

29-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4595 4283 8879 9115 8496 17611

30-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5560 4274 9834 11029 8477 19506

31-Aug-02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6229 4274 10503 12356 8477 20833

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 53 12 65 XXXX 208696 134205 342900 413948 266195 680143

Banks Tracy Combined Banks Tracy Combined
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Chandler Air Service, 

COMPLAINANT 

City of Chandler, AZ 

RESPONDENT. FAA Docket No. 16-13-05 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the above-referenced 

complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport 

Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by 

which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to 

June 26, 2015. 

An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this 

case. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Date I 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May (~ , 2015, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time to 

June 26,2015, for FAA Docket 16-13-08 addressed to: 

Timothy I. McCulloch 

Gordon & Rees LLP 

111 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1600 

Phoenix, AZ 85003 

W. Eric Pilsk 

Daniel S. Reimer 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, LLP 

I 01 Connecticut A venue NW Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, A CO-l 00 

FAA Airports District Office, Phoenix, AZ 

flruu&A 

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
No. 31,027.

#### The Minnesota Tribune Company, *Appellee,*v. Louis Sway, *Appellant.*

(20 P. 2d 490.)

Opinion filed April 8, 1933.

*J. Graham Campbell, W. M. Glenn*and *Clifford E. Branch,*all of Wichita, for the appellant.

*C. L. Kagey, Hal M. Black, L. M. Kagey*and *Roy B. Darlington,*all of Wichita, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This is an action for a sum due under a written contract signed by defendant for advertising in a newspaper published by plaintiff at Minneapolis, Minn. Plaintiff recovered, and defendant has appealed.

The evidence on plaintiff’s behalf, in addition to the written contract, consisted of the depositions of its officers and employees taken at Minneapolis. Appellant contends the court erred in permitting the depositions to be read in evidence for two. reasons: *First,*that the notary’s certificate to the depositions did not affirmatively show that he was not “a clerk or stenographer of either party, or attorney for either party.” It is true that the officer before whom depositions are taken must not be related to, or an attorney of, either party, or otherwise interested in the event of the action or proceeding, or clerk or stenographer of either party, or attorney of either party (R. S. 60-2825), but the section of the statute (R. S. 60-2842) specifying what shall be in the certificate of the officer before whom the depositions are taken does not require that it contain a statement that such officer was “not a clerk or stenographer of either party, or attorney for either party.” Hence ap*353pellant’s point is not well taken. Appellant’s second contention is that when the depositions were read there was no specific showing that the witnesses whose depositions had been taken were not residents of the county where the trial Was being conducted. There is no contention that they were residents of such county, o.r present ' therein, and the depositions show on their face that they are officers or employees of the printing company publishing a paper at Minneapolis, Minn. It was not error for the court to overrule this objection to the reading of the depositions.

In this case defendant did not file exceptions to the depositions in writing before the beginning of the trial, as required by R. S. 60-2846 and 60-2847. In addition to. that the parties had stipulated in writing that the depositions should be read. In view of these facts the objections made in the court below to the reading of the depositions were properly overruled.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
____________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 56909 / December 5, 2007 

Administrative Proceeding 

File No. 3-12678 

: 

In the Matter of : 

: 

Haidar Capital Management, LLC, 

Haidar Capital Advisors, LLC, and 

Said N. Haidar, 

: 

: 

: 

Order Appointing 

Tax Administrator 

: 

Respondents. : 

____________________________________: 

By order dated January 30, 2007, the Commission issued the “Omnibus Order 

Directing the Appointment of Tax Administrator in Administrative Proceedings that 

Establish Distribution Funds” (“Omnibus Order”), Rel. No. 34-55196 authorizing the 

Secretary to issue orders during calendar year 2007 appointing, upon request by the 

Commission staff, Damasco and Associates (“Damasco”), a certified public accounting 

firm located in San Francisco, California, as tax administrator (“Tax Administrator”) in 

administrative proceedings where the distribution fund may incur tax-related 

obligations as a Qualified Settlement Fund (“QSF”) under the Department of the 

Treasury Regulation § 1.468B-1(c). 

On December 4, 2007, the Commission staff requested, pursuant to the Omnibus 

Order, the appointment of Damasco as the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the abovereferenced proceeding. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Damasco, pursuant to and in accordance with the Omnibus 

Order, is appointed the Tax Administrator for the QSF in the above-referenced proceeding. 

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority. 

 Nancy M. Morris

 Secretary
(No. 7018

#### Shelco Construction, Inc., Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of General Services, Respondent.

*Opinion filed July 9, 1973.*

Shelco Construction, Inc., Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.