alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Richard E. Doty, Respondent, v Angelo P. Maniccia et al., Doing Business as Red Dragon, Appellants. Gerald R. Carey, Respondent, v Angelo Maniccia et al., Doing Business as Red Dragon, Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered October 3, 1974 in Cortland County, upon verdicts rendered at a Trial Term in favor of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that pursuant to oral contract, they supplied and installed heating equipment in a building owned by the defendants at 18 North Main Street, Cortland, for which they had not been paid in full. Defendants counterclaimed the plaintiffs failed to properly and competently *938install the equipment and, as a result, the defendants were forced to remedy the improperly installed and inadequate heating system for which they sought damages. The jury awarded the full amount sought by the plaintiffs and found no cause for action as to the defendants’ counterclaim. On appeal the defendants contend that the jury charge was erroneous in several respects. No exception was made to the charge, so the errors, if any, were not preserved for our review (CPLR 5501, subd [a], par 2). Defendants further allege that a question asked defendant Maniccia on cross-examination was improper and prejudicial so as to require reversal. Maniccia had testified on direct examination that the heating system was inadequate and defective. Plaintiffs’ attorney brought out on cross-examination that the premises in question had been transferred to the Urban Renewal Agency prior to the trial. Plaintiffs’ attorney asked Maniccia if he had talked with the appraisers who inspected the property. Upon his denial, the plaintiffs’ attorney continued: "[Did you tell] the appraiser from the [city] that just handed you nearly a third of a million dollars that there was nothing wrong with the heating system”. Defense counsel moved for a declaration of mistrial. The motion was denied and no further instructions were given to the jury. Whether the building was or could be properly heated at the time of the taking by urban renewal was certainly an item to be included in determining the value of the property taken. The witness was competent and the question relevant. Including in the question the amount received by the defendants for the taking by urban renewal was harmless error, if indeed it was error at all. We are satisfied that the result would have been the same if the oral evidence had not been admitted (CPLR 2002). Judgment affirmed, with costs. Greenblott, J. P. Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur; Mahoney and Main, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse in the following memorandum by Mahoney, J. Mahoney, J. (dissenting). Under no theory is the condemnation award or its amount relevant to any issue in this case. Introduction of the irrelevant matter might well have been prejudicial, since it could have induced the jury to conclude that the heating system, even if defective, was no longer the defendants’ problem, and, in any event, they could afford to pay the relatively small claims of the plaintiffs (see *Zipay v Benson,*47 AD2d 233, 236). The judgment should be reversed and the case remitted for a new trial.
#### § 1508.875 May I ask the debarring official to reconsider a decision to debar me?

Yes, as a debarred person you may ask the debarring official to reconsider the debarment decision or to reduce the time period or scope of the debarment. However, you must put your request in writing and support it with documentation.
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-41224

(Summary Calendar)

BUREL B. SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LAMAR UNIVERSITY; JOSEPH

OLSON, in his individual

and official capacities;

RAJIV MALKIAN, in his

individual and official

capacities; STEVE MARADIAN,

in his individual and official

capacities,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:95-CV-1031)

July 23, 1997

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-Appellant Burel B. Smith appeals the district2

court’s dismissal, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

and by summary judgment, of his actions a gainst Lamar University

and three of its faculty and staff members

—— namely, Joseph Olson,

Rajiv Malkian, and Steve Maradian —— in their individual and

official capacities (collectively, Appellees). The claims

dismissed by the district court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) were

those for constructive termination, Fourteenth Amendment

violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress as to

all Appellees, and for violations of Title VII and the ADEA as to

the individual Appellees. At the same time, the district court

granted Lamar University’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing

Smith’s claims against Lamar under Title VII for racial

discrimination and retaliation, as well as his ADEA claim.

After carefully reviewing de novo the record on appeal and the

briefs of counsel for their respective clients, and carefully

considering the Final Judgment of the district court filed October

31, 1996, dismissing all of Smith’s actions against all Appellees,

we reach the same conclusion as did the district court. No useful

purpose would be served by our writing separately, as the analysis

contained in the district court’s craftsmanlike opinion adequately

and correctly disposes of this case. Thus the rulings, orders, and

judgment of the district court are, in all respects,

AFFIRMED.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

FURTHER QUESTIONS

FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Please be prepared on the following additional questions at oral argument:

7. Does §17200 require a “practice,” i.e., is a single failure to hold a vote sufficient?

8. Plaintiffs claim that the disclosures held out the fund as akin to a money market

fund but with a greater yield, i.e., almost no risk of losing principal. Some or all of

the disclosures, however, stated that the fund would invest in MBS. Isn’t there a

jury question whether the MBS disclosure was adequate in light of the main theme

of akin to a money market fund?

9. The bench set of disclosures should also tab and highlight with a different color

from the MBS ones all passages said by plaintiffs to be misleading in the stack of

key documents.

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 519 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

10. If some of these questions are outside the pending briefing, please say so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01510-WHA Document 519 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4369 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to require the public disclosure 

by trusts established under section 524(g) of such title, of quarterly 

reports that contain detailed information regarding the receipt and disposition of claims for injuries based on exposure to asbestos, and the 

filing of such reports with the Executive Office for United States Trustees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 17, 2012 

Mr. QUAYLE (for himself, Mr. MATHESON, and Mr. ROSS of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to require 

the public disclosure by trusts established under section 

524(g) of such title, of quarterly reports that contain 

detailed information regarding the receipt and disposition 

of claims for injuries based on exposure to asbestos, 

and the filing of such reports with the Executive Office 

for United States Trustees. 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4369 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Furthering Asbestos 

3 Claim Transparency (FACT) Act of 2012’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS. 

5 Section 524(g) of title 11, the United States Code, 

6 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

7 ‘‘(8) A trust described in subsection (2) shall— 

8 ‘‘(A) file with the bankruptcy court and the 

9 United States Trustee, not later than 60 days after 

10 the end of every quarter, a report that shall be made 

11 available on the court’s public docket and with re12 spect to each such reporting period— 

13 ‘‘(i) describes each demand the trust re14 ceived from, including the name and exposure 

15 history of, a claimant and the basis for any 

16 payment from the trust made to such claimant; 

17 and 

18 ‘‘(ii) does not include any confidential med19 ical record or the claimant’s full social security 

20 number; and 

21 ‘‘(B) upon written request, provide in a timely 

22 manner any information related to payment from, 

23 and demands for payment from, such trust, subject 

24 to appropriate protective orders, to any party to any 

25 action in law or equity if the subject of such action 

26 concerns liability for asbestos exposure.’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4369 IH

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

2 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub3 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 

4 Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 

5 Act. 

6 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.—The amend7 ments made by this Act shall apply with respect to cases 

8 commenced under title 11 of the United States Code be9 fore, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Angel DelValle, Respondent, v White Castle System, Inc., Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[715 NYS2d 57]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J.), entered August 23, 1999, which, upon a jury verdict, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $507,400, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered July 12, 1999, which denied defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the award for past and future lost earnings, and otherwise affirmed, without costs, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

Defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict as to liability on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support it was properly denied. “Disputes as to the proof are for the ‘jury to resolve in assessing all of the evidence as well as the credibility of the witnesses’ ” *(Bernstein v Red Apple Supermarkets,*227 AD2d 264, 265, *Iv dismissed*89 NY2d 961, quoting *Niewieroski v National Cleaning Contrs.,*126 AD2d 424, 425, *lv denied*70 NY2d 602). The evidence here was not such that it was “utterly irrational” for the jury to reach the conclusion it did *(Cohen v Hallmark Cards,*45 NY2d 493, 499). Nor did the evidence so preponderate in defendant’s favor that the jury could not have reached its conclusion upon a fair interpretation of the evidence *(see, Bernstein v Red Apple Supermarkets, supra,*at 265).

The award for past and future lost wages, however, was based only on plaintiffs testimony regarding prior employment, unsubstantiated by any tax returns or W-2 forms, and *14his current employment of less than two weeks. Thus, plaintiffs past and future earnings were not established with reasonable certainty (see, *Razzaque v Krakow Taxi,*238 AD2d 161, 162, citing, *e.g., Poturniak v Rupcic,*232 AD2d 541) and the award therefor cannot be permitted to stand. The jury award for future pain and suffering, on the other hand, was adequately supported and was not excessive. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.
### §16297. Complex Well Technology Testing Facility

The Secretary, in coordination with industry leaders in extended research drilling technology, shall establish a Complex Well Technology Testing Facility at the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center to increase the range of extended drilling technologies.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title IX, §967, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 894.)
#### § 228.15 Nationality of employees and individuals under contracts or subcontracts for services.

The rules set forth in §§ 228.10 through 228.13 of this part do not apply to the employees of contractors, or individuals providing technical or professional services to recipients or contractors. However, such individuals must not be citizens or lawful permanent residents (or equivalent immigration status) of countries which are prohibited sources.
Exhibit 10.20

 

| TO:      | RACHEL BISHOP                        |
|----------|--------------------------------------|
|     |                                 |
| FROM:    | STEVE ESTES                          |
|     |                                 |
| DATE:    | JULY 8, 2019                         |
|     |                                 |
| SUBJECT: | PLANNED ISSUANCE OF RESTRICTED STOCK |

 

 

As we have discussed, a critical component of our ongoing business strategy for Reynolds Consumer Products LLC will be to explore opportunities for the business that could lead to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the business or potentially a divestiture of the associated business entities. Your assistance is needed by Reynolds as we work through this process to help prepare the business for a successful transaction.  

 

If the IPO is successful, the company whose shares are registered in the IPO will issue you Restricted Stock at the completion of the IPO.  The number of shares in this grant equals $206,000 divided by the IPO price as of the date of the grant, rounded to the nearest whole share.  Vesting for the restricted stock will occur over a 3-year period with 1/3 vesting after 12-months from the successful IP0; 1/3 vesting after 24-months from the successful IPO; and, 1/3 vesting after 36-months from the successful IPO.  You must be an employee of the Company or one of its affiliates on the applicable vesting date to receive such shares.

 

Should there be a business sale instead of an IPO, you will receive $206,000 in cash in lieu of Restricted Stock.  For purposes hereof, a business sale means a sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Company or a sale of more than 50% of the equity of the Company or such entity. This cash payment will be made in the following manner:

 

1⁄2 Payable 30-days post-closing of the sale

 

1⁄2 Payable 180-days post-closing of the sale

This memo does not change your status as an “at-will” employee and does not guarantee your employment for any specific period of time. The Company reserves the right to terminate you at any time and for any or no reason.  Any Restricted Stock issued or cash payment made pursuant to this memo shall be subject to regular tax withholdings and other authorized deductions and will not be treated as compensation for any purpose under any benefit plans or programs, unless statutorily required.

This memo is provided to summarize the agreement that has been reached in this regard between the Company and the employee.  Should an IPO be completed, a formal grant letter for the Restricted Stock will be provided to the employee that documents all terms and conditions related to the grant.

 

//s//  Steve Estes
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

NO. WR-56,769-03

EX P ARTE JAMES EDWARD G IBSO N, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US

CAUSE NO. 2012CR7134-W2 IN THE 186TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM BEXAR COUNTY

Per curiam

.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the

cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte

Y oung

, 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleade d g uilty to unlawful

possession of a fir ear

m by a fe lon, and was se ntence d to fifteen y ear s’ imprisonment.

I n t h e i n s t a n t a p p l i c a t i o n

, A p p l i c a n t c o n t e n d s i n h i s f i r s t g r o u n d f

o r r e v i e w t h a t t h e

t r i a l c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y o r d e r i n g t h i s s e n t e n c e t o r u n c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h a p r i o r

s e n t e n c e

. I n h i s s e c o n d g r o u n d f o r r e v i e w

, A p p l i c a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e B o a r d o f P a r d o n s a n d

P a r o l e s i s r e t r o a c t i v e l y a p p l y i n g S e c t i o n 5 0 8

. 1 4 9 o f t h e T e x a s G o v e r n m e n t C o d e t o d e n y h i m2

e l i g i b i l i t y f

o r m a n d a t o r y s u p e r v i s i o n

, i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e p r o h i b i t i o n o n e x p o s t

f a c t o a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w

. L a s t l y

, A p p l i c a n t a l l e g e s t h a t h i s p l e a a g r e e m e n t i n t h i s c a s e h a s

b e e n v i o l a t e d

, r e n d e r i n g t h e p l e a i n v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e h e b e l i e v e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e p l e a t h a t

h i s p r e v i o u s s e n t e n c e w o u l d b e t h e c o n t r o l l i n g s e n t e n c e f o r p u r p o s e s o f m a n d a t o r y

s u p e r v i s i o n e l i g i b i l i t y a n d r e l e a s e

.

T h i s C o u r t h a s r e v i e w e d A p p l i c a n t ' s f i r s t g r o u n d f

o r r e l i e f a n d h a s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t i t

i s b a r r e d f

r o m r e v i e w u n d e r A r t i c l e 1 1

. 0 7

, S e c t i o n 4 o f t h e T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l

P r o c e d u r e

. T h e r e f

o r e

, t h a t g r o u n d i s d i s m i s s e d

. A p p l i c a n t ' s r e m a i n i n g c l a i m c o n c e r n i n g t h e

e x p o s t f a c t o a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w a n d b r e a c h o f t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t a r e d e n i e d

.

Filed: Oc tober 24, 2018

Do not publish
### Part C—Training in Family Medicine, General Internal Medicine, General Pediatrics, Physician Assistants, General Dentistry, and Pediatric Dentistry
### §300b–16. Authorization of appropriations for newborn screening programs and activities

There are authorized to be appropriated—

(1) to carry out sections 300b–8, 300b–9, 300b–10, and 300b–11 of this title, $11,900,000 for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2019; and

(2) to carry out section 300b–12 of this title, $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2019.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XI, §1117, as added Pub. L. 113–240, §10, Dec. 18, 2014, 128 Stat. 2856.)
###### Editorial Note on Part 209

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 209 appear at 68 FR 51361, Aug. 26, 2003.

#### § 209.13 Delegation of authority.

Responsibility for administration and enforcement of this part, with respect to Federal financial assistance administered by another Federal department or agency pursuant to delegation, transfer interagency service agreement, or other arrangement is vested in the head of such department or agency, or his delegate, and subject to such delegations or redelegations as he may make or authorize.
### §300hh–31. Epidemiology-laboratory capacity grants

#### (a) In general

Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall establish an Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Grant Program to award grants to State health departments as well as local health departments and tribal jurisdictions that meet such criteria as the Director determines appropriate. Academic centers that assist State and eligible local and tribal health departments may also be eligible for funding under this section as the Director determines appropriate. Grants shall be awarded under this section to assist public health agencies in improving surveillance for, and response to, infectious diseases and other conditions of public health importance by—

(1) strengthening epidemiologic capacity to identify and monitor the occurrence of infectious diseases, including mosquito and other vector-borne diseases, and other conditions of public health importance;

(2) enhancing laboratory practice as well as systems to report test orders and results electronically;

(3) improving information systems including developing and maintaining an information exchange using national guidelines and complying with capacities and functions determined by an advisory council established and appointed by the Director; and

(4) developing and implementing prevention and control strategies.

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $190,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023, of which—

(1) not less than $95,000,000 shall be made available each such fiscal year for activities under paragraphs (1) and (4) of subsection (a);

(2) not less than $60,000,000 shall be made available each such fiscal year for activities under subsection (a)(3); and

(3) not less than $32,000,000 shall be made available each such fiscal year for activities under subsection (a)(2).

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVIII, §2821, as added Pub. L. 111–148, title IV, §4304, Mar. 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 584; amended Pub. L. 116–22, title VI, §607(b), June 24, 2019, 133 Stat. 960.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2019—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 116–22, §607(b)(1), inserted ", including mosquito and other vector-borne diseases," after "infectious diseases".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 116–22, §607(b)(2), substituted "2019 through 2023" for "2010 through 2013" in introductory provisions.