alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Insurance Company of State of Pennsylvania, Respondent, v Patsy Dentale, Appellant. Flemington Subaru et al., Proposed Additional Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 115]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to stay arbitration of a claim for uninsured motorist benefits, Patsy Dentale appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Parga, J.), entered March 29, 2005, which granted the petition, and (2) an order of the same court entered July 5, 2005, which denied her motion for leave to renew and reargue the prior motion.

Ordered that the order entered March 29, 2005 is reversed, on the law and the facts, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered July 5, 2005 is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the appellant.

The petitioner brought this proceeding to stay arbitration of an uninsured motorist claim made by its insured, the appellant Patsy Dentale. Dentale’s claim arose out of an automobile accident she had with a vehicle driven by Fernando Ortiz. Accord*855ing to the police accident report, Ortiz fled the scene of the accident, but was apprehended by the police shortly thereafter.

The Supreme Court granted the petition based upon Dentale’s failure to file a statement under oath with the petitioner within 90 days of the accident. This was error. The condition precedent in the supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorists endorsement of the petitioner’s policy which requires an insured to file a statement under oath that the insured has a cause of action against a person whose identity is unascertainable only applies where neither the owner nor driver of the offending vehicle can be identified. Here, the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle, Ortiz, was known.

Moreover, since the petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of the hearing, the petition should have been denied and the proceeding dismissed (see *Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Williams-Staley,*288 AD2d 471 [2001]).

The appeal from so much of the order entered July 5, 2005 as denied that branch of the motion which was for leave to renew must be dismissed as academic, in light of our determination on the appeal from the order entered March 29, 2005. The appeal from so much of the order entered July 5, 2005 as denied that branch of the motion which was for leave to reargue must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument *(see Almonte v Western Beef, Inc.,*21 AD3d 516 [2005]). Luciano, J.P., Rivera, Lifson and Covello, JJ., concur.
#### § 162.31 [Reserved]
#### Evelyn de Baillet-Latour, Respondent, v. A. de Baillet-Latour Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1025.]
### Part C—Other Health Services

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Prior to revision by Pub. L. 102–321, this part was comprised of subpart I, consisting of sections 300dd–31 to 300dd–33, and subpart II, consisting of section 300dd–41.
No: 15-001 January 5, 2015

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Meeting Jan. 14 to Discuss Status of 

Watts Bar Unit 2 Licensing, Construction Schedule

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Jan. 14 to discuss the Watts Bar Unit 2

project with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

The meeting will begin at 2 p.m. in Room 16B4 of the NRC’s One White Flint building at 

11555 Rockville Pike in Rockville. The meeting will discuss the NRC’s review of the Watts Bar 2 

operating license application, including upcoming milestones and potential challenges to the project

schedule’s target of a final licensing decision in 2015.

TVA started work on the two-reactor Watts Bar site, about 50 miles northeast of Chattanooga, 

Tenn., in the 1970s. Work on Watts Bar Unit 2 was suspended in 1985, with TVA keeping the 

construction permit active. The utility told the NRC in 2007 that it would complete Unit 2, and the 

agency has monitored construction efforts since that time. The NRC updated Unit 2’s environmental 

impact statement in May 2013. Watts Bar Unit 1 has operated since 1996. 

The agenda includes opportunities for the public to ask the NRC questions before the meeting 

concludes. A webinar will be available for those unable to attend the meeting in person. Anyone 

interested in the webinar should contact Jeanne Dion at jeanne.dion@nrc.gov or 301-415-1349, or 

Justin Poole at justin.poole@nrc.gov or 301-415-2048 by Jan. 12.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual
Report of Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the SEC on the date hereof, I, Chi-Wen Tsai, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 26, 2011



By:

/s/ Chi-Wen TsaiName:

Chi-Wen TsaiTitle:

Chief Executive Officer




|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the company and will be retained by the
company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69886-69887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26514]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[I.D. 112604B]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey.
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0052.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 43,934.
    Number of Respondents: 712,229.
    Average Hours Per Response: 7 minutes for fishing households; 7 
minutes for party/charter boat operators; 4.5 minutes for intercepted 
anglers; 3 minutes for supplemental economic data from fishing 
households; 5 minutes for supplemental economic data from party/charter 
boat operators; 8 minutes

[[Page 69887]]

for supplemental economic data from intercepted anglers; 1.5 minutes 
for verification calls; 1 minute for non-fishing households, and .5 
minutes for non-households.
    Needs and Uses: Marine recreational anglers are surveyed for catch 
and effort data, fish biology data, and angler socioeconomic 
characteristics. These data are required to carry out provisions of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
1801 et seq.), as amended, regarding conservation and management of 
fishery resources.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, and individuals or 
households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcd8f4c5d2d9d7fcd8d3df92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="016549786f646a41656e622f666e77">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c587d6a7578434e736f6877796e5c73717e3279736c327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="622603140b063d300d1116090710220d0f004c070d124c050d14">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 23, 2004.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-26514 Filed 11-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Shirley Dennis, an Infant, by Ernest C. Dennis, Her Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. Pasquale Cioppa et al., Respondents. Ernest C. Dennis, Appellant, v. Pasquale Cioppa et al., Respondents.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 740.]
Changes in Executive Compensation Arrangements



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Changes to Executive Compensation Arrangements 
 The following is a summary of changes in compensation
arrangements for our executive officers during the quarter ended June 30, 2007: 
 Effective June 1, 2007, we increased the base
salary of our executive officers by 4% to 6% each. We also provided our executive officers bonuses ranging from approximately 33% to 76% of the executive officers’ annual base salary.
Petition for Exemption

Kelly P Stiner

I, Kelly P Stiner, hereby submit this petition for exemption under Section 333; FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95 FEB. 14, 2012, Section 333.

I request this exemption in order to operate my UAV/UAS, DJI Phantom Vision 2 plus

Professional Quadcopter Aircraft, for the purpose of aerial data collection in order to 

provide services for profit to include aerial photography, aerial cinematography, aerial 

filming and photography for real estate, construction firms, agricultural modeling, crop 

monitoring operations, aerial mapping, special events to include but not limited to 

weddings, private or public parties/events, business advertising, promotional events, 

geological surveying, and environmental studies.

The ability to provide these services to other local businesses and individuals in my 

community will benefit them by opening up opportunities they otherwise did not have 

before. Traditional methods of aerial photography / videography are simply not viable 

options for the average consumer as they are costly and involve greater risks to 

everyone involved; i.e. the use of larger aircraft carrying humans and flammable fuel. By 

utilizing the UAV/UAS the same results can be achieved with much safer conditions.

Prior to each flight/operation of the UAV/UAS, I will conduct a Pre-Flight Safety 

Inspection. Only the manufacturers authorized repair facilities/ providers will perform 

any and all repairs. Flights will not take place over densely populated areas or private 

property without the owners permission. The UAV/UAS will only be operated within 

visual line of sight and will not be flown near airports or above 400 feet. The FAA can be 

confident that operations of this UAV/UAS will achieve at least the equivalent or greater 

level of safety. The UAV weighs less than 55 lbs, all Flights will be terminated at the 

15% remaining battery life which can be monitored remotely. All Safety factors will be 
followed to very closely at all times. All fights will have at least two people one pilot and 

one spotter.

I have Flown RC Plans and Helicopters for over 20 years and have never had a flight go 

bad, I was a member of the T.R.A.M.P.S flying club for 5 years.

The specific sections of 14 C.F.R from which I am seeking exemption are as follows:

14 C.F.R. Part 21;

14 C.F.R. 45.23(b);

14 C.F.R. 61.101(e)(4), & (5);

14 C.F.R. 61.113(a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 61.133 (a);

14 C.F.R. 61.23(a) & (c);

14 C.F.R 91.7(a)

14 C.F.R. 91.9(b)(2);

14C.F.R. 91.109(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.119;

14 C.F.R. 91.121;

14 C.F.R. 91.151(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.203(a) & (b);

14 C.F.R. 91.405(a);

14 C.F.R. 91.407(a)(1);

14 C.F.R. 91.409(a)(2};

14 C.F.R. 91.417(a) & (b).
Please find the included User Manual, Quick Start Guide, Safety Guide, and Intelligent 

Flight Battery Safety Guide.

I truly thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Kelly P Stiner

Attachments

Phantom 2 Vision Plus Disclaimer

Phantom 2 Vision Plus User Guild

Phantom 2 Vison Plus Quick Start

Phantom 2 Vision Plus Battery Info sheet

Phantom 2 Vision Plus Pilot Training guild
ADDENDUM TO EMPLOYEMENT AGREEMENT - SOOK



 Exhibit 10.1 
 TO: Perry A. Sook 
 FR: Compensation Committee of Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc. 
 RE: Addendum to Employment Agreement 
 DA: July 2, 2007 
 This memorandum will serve as an addendum to your Executive Employment Agreement with Nexstar Broadcasting Group, Inc. (the “Company”), dated as of January 5, 1998, and as amended on May 10,
2001, September 26, 2002 and August 25, 2003 (the “Agreement”). 
 The signatories hereto agree that Section 6(b) of the
Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
 “In the event of termination of Sook’s employment pursuant
to paragraph 3(c), 3(e) or 3(f) hereof, the Company shall pay to Sook as soon as practicable following such termination that amount as shall be equal to the sum of (i) 200% of Sook’s Base Salary (as defined in the Agreement) as in effect
of the date of termination and (ii) 200% of Sook’s target bonus for the fiscal year in which such termination occurs.” 
 Capitalized terms
used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. 
 All other terms and conditions of the Agreement will remain in full
force and effect. 
 Please indicate your agreement with and acceptance of the terms and conditions of this addendum as of the date listed above by signing
below. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ Jay Grossman

	 Jay Grossman

	Chairman of the Compensation Committee
	
	Agreed and Accepted:
	
	 /s/ Perry A. Sook

	 Perry A. Sook

	President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 1203.11 Marking the impact test line. Prior to testing, the impact test line shall be determined for each helmet in the following manner. ( a ) Position the helmet on the appropriate headform as specified by the manufacturer's helmet positioning index (HPI), with the brow parallel to the basic plane. Place a 5-kg (11-lb) preload ballast on top of the helmet to set the comfort or fit padding.
( b ) Draw the impact test line on the outer surface of the helmet coinciding with the intersection of the surface of the helmet with the impact line planes defined from the reference headform as shown in: ( 1 ) Figure 4 of this part for helmets intended only for persons 5 years of age and older.
( 2 ) Figure 5 of this part for helmets intended for persons age 1 and older.
( c ) The center of the impact sites shall be selected at any point on the helmet on or above the impact test line.
#### Playland Holding Corp., Respondent, v. Playland Center, Inc., Appellant.

Order granting injunctive relief pursuant to section 964 of the Penal Law reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and petition dismissed, without costs. The facts do not warrant an injunction against the use of the word “Playland”, which is in common use, or deletion thereof from the corporate name of appellant. The clown’s head is a symbol of similar operations and is also in common use; therefore the use of it should not be restrained. MacCrate, Schmidt, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur; Wenzel, Acting P. J., dissents and votes to affirm, with the following memorandum: It appears clear to me that the defendant’s adoption of its name, and the full face clown’s head used in conjunction therewith in public display is intended to, and is prone to deceive the public. This is one of the elements in actions of alleged unfair competition. The defendant's “ Playland Center ” is situated on an arterial highway which would necessarily be passed by many people bound *1076for plaintiff’s “ Rockaways’ Playland ”, but a few miles distant. The fact that the features of the clowns are not identical and that the names vary slightly is not of import if there is the likelihood that at least some people enroute to plaintiff’s amusement park will be deceived by the combination of the name and the laughing clown into believing they have arrived at their destination. The use of the name and device is an infraction of section 964 of the Penal Law. [206 Misc. 404.] [See *post,*p. 1174.]
No: 16-024 May 5, 2016

Contact: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Issues Final Supplement to 

Yucca Mountain Environmental Impact Statement

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published the staff’s final environmental impact 

statement supplement on a proposed permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level 

radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The supplement analyzes potential impacts on 

groundwater and surface groundwater discharges and determines all impacts would be “small.”

The document supplements environmental impact statements the Department of Energy 

prepared on the proposed repository. DOE issued the final EIS in 2002, then supplemented it in 

June 2008 when it submitted a construction authorization application to the NRC. Under the Nuclear 

Waste Policy Act, the NRC is to adopt DOE’s EIS to the extent practicable. The NRC staff 

recommended adoption of DOE’s EISs in September 2008, but noted the need to supplement the study 

of groundwater effects in the Yucca Mountain aquifer beyond DOE’s analyzed location at the site 

boundary. DOE ultimately deferred to the NRC to prepare the supplement.

The NRC published a draft of the supplement for public comment last August. During the 

91-day comment period, NRC staff conducted public meetings to present the report and receive 

comments in Rockville, Md., and in Las Vegas and Amargosa Valley, Nev. Including comment letters 

and oral comments, the NRC received more than 1,200 comments on the draft supplement. The NRC 

staff’s responses to these comments, and descriptions of changes made to the final report in response to 

comments, are in Appendix B of the supplement.

The supplement to the Yucca Mountain EIS is available on the NRC website.
[Civil No. 265.]

#### F. C. HATCH, Appellant, v. J. L. GANT, Appellee.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa.

E. J. Edwards, and Goodrich & Street, for Appellants.

H. B. Lighthizér, for Appellee.

April 8, 1889.

Dismissed.
#### § 930.157 Mediation and informal negotiations.

The relevant provisions contained in subpart G of this part are available for resolution of disputes between affected States, relevant Federal agencies, and applicants or applicant agencies The parties to the dispute are also encouraged to use alternative means for resolving their disagreement. OCRM shall be available to assist the parties in these efforts.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Patrick Henry, Chief Executive Officer and President of Entropic Communications, Inc.
(the Company), and David Lyle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended June 30, 2008, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32 (the Quarterly Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of August 5, 2008.



|                                      |  |  |  |                              
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|                                      |  | 
|/s/ Patrick Henry                     |  |  |  | /s/ David Lyle               
|Patrick Henry                         |  |  |  | David Lyle                   
|Chief Executive Officer and President |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)         |  |  |  | (Principal Financial Officer)



|* | This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into
any filing of Entropic Communications, Inc. made under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Form 10-Q, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates this certification by reference therein.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order filed March 1, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00759-CV

____________

JAMAAL JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

COLETTE BURNS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-11901

ORDER

The notice of appeal in this case was filed December 27, 2021. The clerk 

responsible for preparing the record notified this court that appellant has not made 

payment for the record. No evidence that appellant has established indigence has 

been filed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. On February 1, 2022, this court notified 

appellant that the appeal was subject to dismissal unless appellant filed a response 

with proof of payment for the record. No response was filed. Therefore, the court 

issues the following order.
Appellant is ordered to demonstrate to this court that he has made 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record on or before March 16, 2022. See Tex.

R. App. P. 35.3(c). If appellant fails to do so, the appeal will be dismissed. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Spain.