alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### American Continental Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Michael Lynn, Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 1]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered August 9 and August 10, 2005, which, in an action for architectural malpractice, granted defendant’s motion to “strike” plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

There is no dispute that, as reflected in the court’s computerized records, the action was dismissed on February 28, 1997 pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 (c) when both sides failed to appear for a preliminary conference. That an order of dismissal was never signed by the conference court and entered does not render the dismissal ineffective or relieve plaintiffs of the burden of showing a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear at the conference and a meritorious cause of action *(see Saunders v Riverbay Corp.,*17 AD3d 137 [2005]; *Campos v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*307 AD2d 785 [2003]). We reject the distinction plaintiffs draw between a dismissal upon a plaintiffs failure to appear at a conference (22 NYCRR 202.27 *701[b]), and a dismissal upon both sides’ failure to appear at a conference (22 NYCRR 202.27 [c]), and their argument that the latter circumstance, if not the former, requires entry of a signed order for the dismissal to be effective. We also note that absent deceitful or other culpable conduct by plaintiffs’ attorney that might have caused defendant’s attorney to forgo submitting a dismissal order and serving it with notice of entry, plaintiffs had a year to make a motion to vacate the 22 NYCRR 202.27 dismissal, measured from service of a copy of the dismissal order with notice of entry (CPLR 5015 [a] [1]). Since such an order was never served, the year never began to run, and plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the dismissal was timely. Any prejudice caused defendant by the eight-year postdismissal delay is not a consideration in deciding whether to vacate the dismissal *(see Acevedo v Navarro,*22 AD3d 391 [2005]).

Nevertheless, it is also undisputed that the February 6, 1997 notice was received by counsel for both parties. Thus, in the absence of a signed stipulation or admission by defendant’s attorney, we reject plaintiffs’ attorney’s representation that he and defendant’s attorney had orally agreed to cancel the conference and to take no steps in the instant action pending resolution of a related action (CPLR 2104) and find that plaintiffs fail to show a reasonable excuse for their failure to appear at the conference that was scheduled for February 28, 1997. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.
### SUBCHAPTER XIV—ETHANOL AND MOTOR FUELS
ex10_216.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit
      10.2.16

    


    AMENDMENT
      NO. 16 TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

    


    AGREED,
      as of the 7th day of June 2007,
      between the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation (FAMC) and Henry D.
      Edelman  (you), that the existing employment contract between the
      parties hereto, dated May 5, 1989, as amended through Amendment No. 15
      dated as of June 1, 2006  (collectively, the Agreement), be and hereby
      is amended as follows:

    


    Sections
      1, 4 (a), 9 (a) (iii), and 10
      of the Agreement are replaced in their entirety with the following new
      sections:

    


    1.                  Term.  The
      Term of this Agreement shall continue until July 1, 2012 or any earlier
      effective date of termination pursuant to Paragraph 9 hereof (the
“Term”).

    


    4
      (a).
           Base
      Salary.  As of July 1, 2007, you will be paid a base salary
      (the Base Salary) during the Term of Five Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand Seven
      Hundred Dollars ($558,700) per year, payable in arrears on a bi-weekly
      basis;

    


    9
      (a)
      (iii).       Farmer Mac may terminate the
      employment of the Employee without “cause” at any time.   Such
      termination shall become effective on the earlier of July 1, 2012 or two years
      from the date of notice of such termination;

    


    10.        Notices.  Any
      notice given under this Agreement will be sufficient if in writing and
      either:  (a) mailed postage prepaid by registered or certified mail,
      return receipt requested; or (b) delivered by hand to, in the case of Farmer
      Mac, 1133 Twenty-First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, attention Vice
      President – General Counsel or, in the case of the Employee, 7521 Royal Oak
      Drive, McLean, VA  22102 (or to such other addresses as may be from
      time to time designated by notice from the recipient party to the
      other).  Any such notice will be effective upon actual receipt or
      refusal thereof.

    


     
As
      amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force and effect.

     

    
      	
              Federal
                Agricultural Mortgage Corporation

            	 	Employee
	 	 	 	 
	
              By:

            	
              /s/
                Fred L. Dailey

            	 	
              /s/
                Henry D. Edelman

            
	 	
              Chairman
                of the Board
### §13975. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 13975 was editorially reclassified as section 12351 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
No: IV-15-028 September 21, 2015

CONTACT: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

NRC to Begin Special Inspection at Callaway Nuclear Station

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection at the Callaway nuclear 

plant to review circumstances following a reactor shutdown involving the failure of three of four 

control valves that regulate water flow to the steam generators. The plant, operated by Ameren 

Missouri, is located near Fulton, Mo.

Following a reactor trip on Aug. 11, all systems performed as expected, including the automatic 

start of a system that controls water flow to the steam generators. However, when operators tried to 

switch to the motor-driven water pumps, a control valve failed to operate. Internal circuitry in the 

control valve system had been previously modified in late 2014, apparently introducing a flaw in the 

design that resulted in the failure. 

The NRC learned that another control valve in the system had been similarly modified and also 

experienced a failure in December 2014. The affected valves were repaired and tested prior to the plant 

being restarted on Aug. 12. Additionally, the NRC is aware of a third unrelated control valve failure in 

the same system earlier this year that had already been corrected. 

“The purpose of this special inspection is to better understand the circumstances surrounding 

the valve failures, determine if the licensee’s extent of condition review was sufficiently 

comprehensive, and review the licensee’s corrective actions to ensure that the causes of the failures

have been effectively addressed,” NRC Region IV Administrator Marc Dapas said.

The NRC staff determined that a special inspection is warranted because the valves provide an

important function in the mitigation of selected plant events. NRC inspectors will spend about a week 

on site looking into outstanding questions with respect to the licensee’s testing, maintenance, design 

change, and corrective action processes specific to these valves and the associated system. They will 

also evaluate the licensee’s root cause analysis and extent of condition review, and the adequacy of 

corrective actions.

An inspection report documenting the team’s findings will be publicly available within 45 days 

of the end of the inspection.
§ 1263.3 Requirements for consumer products containing button cell or coin batteries. Each consumer product containing button cell or coin batteries shall comply with ANSI/UL 4200A, *Standard for Safety for Products Incorporating Button Batteries or Coin Cell Batteries,* approved on August 30, 2023. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. This material is available for inspection at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission at: the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone (301) 504-7479, email: *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov .* For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit *https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations* or email *fr.inspection@nara.gov .* A free, read-only copy of the standard is available for viewing on UL's website at *https://www.ulstandards.com/IBR/logon.aspx .* You may also obtain a copy from Underwriters Laboratories, Inc (UL), 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, or through UL's website: *www.UL.com .*
IIB 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2523 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 12, 2004 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 125 

Bull Street in Savannah, Georgia, as the ‘‘Tomochichi 

United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 2523 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The United States courthouse located at 125 Bull 

3 Street in Savannah, Georgia, shall be known and des4 ignated as the ‘‘Tomochichi United States Courthouse’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

8 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

9 to be a reference to the ‘‘Tomochichi United States Court10 house’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 11, 2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
§ 312.6 Right of parent to review personal information provided by a child. ( a ) Upon request of a parent whose child has provided personal information to a Web site or online service, the operator of that Web site or online service is required to provide to that parent the following: ( 1 ) A description of the specific types or categories of personal information collected from children by the operator, such as name, address, telephone number, email address, hobbies, and extracurricular activities;
( 2 ) The opportunity at any time to refuse to permit the operator's further use or future online collection of personal information from that child, and to direct the operator to delete the child's personal information; and
( 3 ) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a means of reviewing any personal information collected from the child. The means employed by the operator to carry out this provision must: ( i ) Ensure that the requestor is a parent of that child, taking into account available technology; and
( ii ) Not be unduly burdensome to the parent.
( b ) Neither an operator nor the operator's agent shall be held liable under any Federal or State law for any disclosure made in good faith and following reasonable procedures in responding to a request for disclosure of personal information under this section.
( c ) Subject to the limitations set forth in § 312.7, an operator may terminate any service provided to a child whose parent has refused, under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, to permit the operator's further use or collection of personal information from his or her child or has directed the operator to delete the child's personal information.
ALASKA SEAFOOD C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2013

- 0652

DCN: 00 30 6ACBI

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1177

THOMAS H. FLUHARTY, in his official capacity as Bankruptcy Trustee; 

THOMAS J. JACQUEZ, husband; DIANA R. JACQUEZ, wife,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

CITY OF CLARKSBURG, a municipal corporation and political subdivision; 

JAMES C. HUNT; MARGARET H. BAILEY; MARTIN G. HOWE; ADAM 

BARBERIO; H. KEITH KESLING; JONATHAN R. DAVIS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-00027-IMK-MJA)

Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: January 8, 2018

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and Paula XINIS, United States District 

Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Michael Benninger, BENNINGER LAW, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Jay T. 

McCamic, MCCAMIC, SACCO & MCCOID, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for 

Appellants. Keith C. Gamble, Kenneth L. Hopper, PULLIN, FOWLER, FLANAGAN, 

BROWN & POE, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Herbert Fluharty, Thomas J. Jacquez, and Diana R. Jacquez appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing their civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. We agree with the district court that the Appellants’ action 

was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and was not tolled or saved by the 

continuing violation doctrine. We also agree with the district court that the Appellants 

failed to establish a violation of their procedural due process rights. Accordingly, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fluharty v. City of Clarksburg, No. 1:14-

cv-00027-IMK-MJA (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 3, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 303.25 Sectional disclosure of content. ( a ) *Permissive.* Where a textile fiber product is composed of two or more sections which are of different fiber composition, the required information as to fiber content may be separated in the same label in such manner as to show the fiber composition of each section.
( b ) *Mandatory.* The disclosure as above provided shall be made in all instances where such form of marking is necessary to avoid deception.
#### § 13.3 Programs and activities of the Department subject to the regulations.

The Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a list of the Department's programs and activities that are subject to these regulations and identifies which of these are subject to the requirements of section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act.
No: 16-019 April 26, 2016

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC and Army Corps of Engineers Issue Final Environmental Impact Statement

for Bell Bend New Reactor

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers have concluded that 

environmental impacts would not prevent issuing a Combined License (COL) for a new reactor at the 

Bell Bend site in Pennsylvania. The site is adjacent to the existing Susquehanna nuclear power plant, 

about 70 miles northeast of Harrisburg, Pa.

The NRC staff conducted an independent assessment of the Bell Bend COL application. The 

environmental review will be published soon in the Federal Register. The review took into account 

consultations with other federal agencies, state, tribal and local governments, and considered comments 

received during the public scoping process in 2009 and 2012. The staff also considered comments 

received on the draft environmental impact statement issued in April 2015. 

The NRC staff conclusions are documented in NUREG-2179, “Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Combined License for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant: Final Report,” parts one

and two. The final environmental impact statement is available for public inspection at the McBride 

Memorial Library, 500 N. Market St., Berwick, Pa., and the Mill Memorial Public Library, 495 E. Main 

St., Nanticoke, Pa. The Bell Bend application and general information about new reactor licensing are 

available on the NRC website.

Talen Energy submitted the COL application on Oct. 10, 2008, seeking permission to construct 

and operate a U.S. EPR reactor at the site. AREVA Inc., the designer of the U.S. EPR, requested that 

the NRC staff suspend its safety review of the U.S. EPR design certification application in February 

2015. As a result, the U.S. EPR design certification review and Bell Bend safety review are on hold 

until further notice.

The final environmental impact statement supports the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review of 

the Bell Bend COL application for the activities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 

10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899. The Corps will issue a separate record of decision on the 

work proposed for Corps’ review and authorization.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-16-0043:  Ninth 6 Month Status Update on Response to Lessons-Learned from Japan's March 11, 2011 Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami

Accession Number: ML16054A255

Date Released: Friday, April 22, 2016

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML16054A296 - SECY-16-0043:  Ninth 6 Month Status Update on Response to Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami (15 page(s), 4/5/2016)
    - ML16054A454 - SECY-16-0043:  Enclosure 1 - Ninth 6 Month Status Update on Response to Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami (12 page(s), 4/5/2016)
    - ML16054A483 - SECY-16-0043:  Enclosure 2 - Ninth 6 Month Status Update on Response to Lessons Learned from Japan's March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami (6 page(s), 4/5/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.27


                           ALTUS PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
                   EXECUTIVE OFFICER COMPENSATION INFORMATION



The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Compensation
Committee") of Altus Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Altus") has approved the 2005 fiscal
year cash bonuses and 2006 fiscal year annual base salaries, effective as of
January 1, 2006, of Altus' Chief Executive Officer and its four other most
highly compensated executive officers who were employed by us as of December 31,
2005 and earned more than $100,000 in salary and bonus for the year ended
December 31, 2005 (the "named executive officers").

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Name and Position                           2005 Base Salary ($)      2006 Base Salary ($)       2005 Bonus ($)    2006 Bonus ($)
-----------------                           --------------------      --------------------       --------------    --------------
<S>                                         <C>                       <C>                        <C>               <C>
Sheldon Berkle                                    400,000                   412,000                 153,000             (1)
President and Chief Executive Officer

Don G. Burstyn, Ph.D.                             256,875                   269,462                 25,000              (1)
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and
Quality Assurance

Robert Gallotto                                   210,000                   240,000                 38,000              (1)
Vice President, Strategic Planning and
Alliance Management

Jonathan I. Lieber                                206,000                   250,000                 38,000              (1)
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Treasurer

Alexey L. Margolin, Ph.D.                         271,282                   286,203                 67,000              (1)
Chief Scientific Officer
</TABLE>

      The 2005 fiscal year cash bonuses for Altus' Chief Executive Officer and
the named executive officers was determined by the Compensation Committee based
upon overall corporate performance together with a subjective assessment by the
Compensation Committee of each officer's achievement of previously established
performance goals which relate to the officer's areas of responsibility.

      (1) For the 2006 fiscal year, the named executive officers are eligible to
receive a cash bonus of up to 20% of their base salary, except for Altus' Chief
Executive Officer,
<PAGE>

who is eligible to receive a cash bonus of up to 50% of his base salary, upon
the achievement of individual performance goals.


      Further information with respect to the compensation of Altus' named
executive officers is set forth in the Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File
No. 333-129037).
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00597-CV

Crystal Elizabeth De La Torre, Appellant

v.

Armando De La Torre, Jr., Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY 

NO. 18-3333-FC3, THE HONORABLE DOUG ARNOLD, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due on November 14, 2019.

Appellant’s counsel has now filed an opposed motion for extension of time, requesting that the 

Court extend the time for filing appellant’s brief in this accelerated appeal by 60 days. We grant

the motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than January 13, 2020. 

No further extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this order may result in 

dismissal of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a).

It is ordered on November 27, 2019.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Triana and Smith
§ 162.8 Acceptable delivery methods of opt-out notices. ( a ) *In general.* The opt-out notice must be provided so that each consumer can reasonably be expected to receive actual notice.
( b ) *Electronic notices.* For opt-out notices provided electronically, the notice may be provided in compliance with either the electronic disclosure provisions in § 1.4 of this title or the provisions in section 101 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001 *et seq.*
#### Baby Show Exhibition Company v. Crowell Publishing Company.

Motion for stay granted. Order to be settled on notice. Present—Clarke, P. J.,McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Smith, JJ.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-16-0048:  Proposed Rulemaking:  Non-power Production or Utilization Facility (NPUF)

Accession Number: ML15323A048

Date Released: Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML16019A048 - SECY-16-0048:  Proposed Rulemaking: Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal (RIN-350-AI96) (9 page(s), 4/7/2016)
    - ML15323A055 - SECY-16-0048:  Enclosure 1 - Proposed Rulemaking: Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal (RIN-350-AI96) (71 page(s), 4/7/2016)
    - ML15323A058 - SECY-16-0048:  Enclosure 2 - Proposed Rulemaking: Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal (RIN-350-AI96) (41 page(s), 4/7/2016)
    - ML15323A054 - SECY-16-0048:  Enclosure 3 - Proposed Rulemaking: Non-Power Production or Utilization Facility License Renewal (RIN-350-AI96) (14 page(s), 4/7/2016)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
### subpart 1—quality measure development