alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John M. Jackson, Also Known as Jack, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 134]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal possession and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]; § 220.39 [1]). We reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel *(see, People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147). Contrary to defendant’s contention, defense counsel requested a *Ventimiglia*hearing and successfully precluded use of evidence, of other crimes. Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to request an accomplice charge with respect to the informant. Such a charge was not warranted because the informant was not an accomplice; he acted as an agent of the police, and therefore lacked the intent to commit the crimes with which defendant was charged *(see, People v Bedoya,*122 AD2d 545, *lv denied*68 NY2d 998). It is evident from defense counsel’s opening and closing statements that the defense strategy was to deny that the cocaine was defendant’s, and we will not second-guess whether that strategy “was the best trial strategy, or even a good one, so long as defendant was afforded meaningful representation” *(People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796, 799-800). We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Dwyer, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
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

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTIE’S INC., a New York corporation, 

and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

CHRISTIE, MANSON & WOODS, LTD., 

a United Kingdom corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HALSEY MINOR, an individual,

and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-05445 WHA

Consolidated with:

No. C 09-00471 WHA

JUDGMENT

Based on the accompanying jury verdicts, judgment is hereby entered as follows: 

1. In Case No. 08-05445, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff

Halsey Minor and against defendant Christie’s Inc. in the total amount of

$8,570,000. 

Case 3:09-cv-00471-WHA Document 39 Filed 05/21/10 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

2. In Case No. 08-05445, judgment is entered in favor of

counterclaimant Christie’s Inc. and against counterdefendant Halsey Minor in the

total amount of $417,000. 

3. In Case No. 09-00471, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff

Christie, Manson & Woods and against defendant Halsey Minor in the total

amount of $994,716.06.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00471-WHA Document 39 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                         TRANSCEND THERAPEUTICS, INC.
                      COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                              June 30, 1997             1996               1995             1994
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>                     <C>                <C>              <C>
Proforma common stock outstanding beginning of year                 763,306          763,306            759,134           44,109
Issuance of cheap stock                                           1,918,127        1,918,127          1,918,127        1,918,127
Weighted average common stock issued during the period                                                    4,172          715,025
Weighted average common stock issued from conversion
  of preferred stock to common stock, net                         1,300,000        1,300,000          1,300,000        1,300,000
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average common shares outstanding                        3,981,433        3,981,433          3,981,433        3,977,261
                                                           =====================================================================
Net income (loss)                                                $1,438,528      $(4,126,930)       $(4,449,987)     $(3,602,892)
Accretion of Redeemable Non-convertible Preferred Stock            (118,667)      (5,080,496)        (1,481,088)      (1,110,816)
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Net income (loss) to common stockholders                         $1,319,861      $(9,207,426)       $(5,931,075)     $(4,713,708)
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Proforma net income (loss) per common share                           $0.33           $(2.31)

</TABLE>
#### § 1000.143 How does a recipient implement its useful life requirements?

A recipient implements its useful life requirements by placing a binding commitment, satisfactory to HUD, on the assisted property.

[77 FR 71526, Dec. 3, 2012]
[File No. 6520.]

#### JOHN W. PASEKA, Respondent, v. ARMOUR & COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant.

(280 *N.*W. 205.)

Opinion filed March 29, 1938.

*Fuller &*Powers, for appellant.

*'/Goodwin. T. Westlund:*and *Gonmy &*Gonmy, for .respondent.,.

*284Per Ouriam.

Tbe issues in this case are similar to those involved in the case of Olson v. Armour & Co., decided at this term, ante, 272, 280 N. W. 200. In all, four cases were tried and appeal taken by the defendant in each case. Appellant says that the case of Olson v. Armour & Co. is typical of all four cases. An examination of the record shows this to be correct. The same points are involved. The amount of damages allowed is the main issue.

This case, therefore, is controlled by the decision in Olson v. Armour & Co., and for the reasons set forth in the opinion therein the judgment is affirmed.

Christianson, Oh. J., and Burr and Nuessle, JJ., concur.

Morris and Sathre, JJ., dissent.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, RFP SBIR Topic 209—Establishment of Benchmark Data Sets for Radiotherapy Quality Assurance.                    

*Date:*                         February 11, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate contract proposals.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6130 Executive Blvd., Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Kenneth L. Bielat, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Room 7147, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-7576,                         *bielatk@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS.)

Dated: December 20, 2004.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 04-28307 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### The People of the State *of*New York, Respondent, v. James Randolph Smith, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on appellant’s typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six copies of his typewritten brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the April Term, commencing March 27, 1961; the appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. William Scott, II, Esq., of 201 Main St., White Plains, New York, is assigned to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
### §7671m. Relationship to other laws

#### (a) State laws

Notwithstanding section 7416 of this title, during the 2-year period beginning on November 15, 1990, no State or local government may enforce any requirement concerning the design of any new or recalled appliance for the purpose of protecting the stratospheric ozone layer.

#### (b) Montreal Protocol

This subchapter as added by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 shall be construed, interpreted, and applied as a supplement to the terms and conditions of the Montreal Protocol, as provided in Article 2, paragraph 11 thereof, and shall not be construed, interpreted, or applied to abrogate the responsibilities or obligations of the United States to implement fully the provisions of the Montreal Protocol. In the case of conflict between any provision of this subchapter and any provision of the Montreal Protocol, the more stringent provision shall govern. Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed, interpreted, or applied to affect the authority or responsibility of the Administrator to implement Article 4 of the Montreal Protocol with other appropriate agencies.

#### (c) Technology export and overseas investment

Upon November 15, 1990, the President shall—

(1) prohibit the export of technologies used to produce a class I substance;

(2) prohibit direct or indirect investments by any person in facilities designed to produce a class I or class II substance in nations that are not parties to the Montreal Protocol; and

(3) direct that no agency of the government provide bilateral or multilateral subsidies, aids, credits, guarantees, or insurance programs, for the purpose of producing any class I substance.

(July 14, 1955, ch. 360, title VI, §614, as added Pub. L. 101–549, title VI, §602(a), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2668.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, referred to in subsec. (b), probably means Pub. L. 101–549, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2399. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1990 Amendment note set out under section 7401 of this title and Tables.
#### Charlotte Hewson, Appellant-Respondent, v David Hewson, Respondent-Appellant.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County entered November 22, 1976, disposing of various post-judgment disputes between the parties in a matrimonial action, is modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing so much of the order as directs the net proceeds of the sale of the house to be divided, one half to the plaintiff and one half to the defendant, and the matter is remanded for a hearing with respect to an appropriate *516division of said net proceeds, and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We have been informed on oral argument that the house (beach property in Rumson, New Jersey) has in fact been sold. The separation agreement provided that the husband would pay all of the "charges required” on that house "including, but not limited to the mortgage interest and principal, taxes and insurance on said premises.” It appears to us that such a provision does alter the beneficial interest of the parties in the house, and that the division of the proceeds of the sale should take this into account. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Lupiano and Silverman, JJ.; Lane and Lynch, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm on the opinion of Shainswit, J.
Case 3:08-cv-04697-WHA Document 52 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:08-cv-04697-WHA Document50 Filed01/20/10 Page1 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-04697-WHA Document 52 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 3 Case3:08-cv-04697-WHA Document50 Filed01/20/10 Page2 of 3
Case3:08-cv-04697-WHA Document50 Filed01/20/10 Page3 of 3

21

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:08-cv-04697-WHA Document 52 Filed 01/21/10 Page 3 of 3
##### 



Exhibit 21.1 PRA International
Subsidiaries 4079558 Canada Inc. (Canada) Buyer 4063988 (Canada) Call Co 3065613 (Canada) IMTCI (UK) Ltd. (United Kingdom) International Medical Technical Consultants, Inc. (Delaware, United States) MFH, Inc. (Delaware, United States) Pharmaceutical Research Associates AG (Switzerland) Pharmaceutical Research Associates Belgium, BVBA (Belgium) Pharmaceutical Research Associates Espana, SA (Spain) Pharmaceutical Research Associates Global, Inc. (Canada) Pharmaceutical Research Associates GmbH (Germany) Pharmaceutical Research Associates, Hungary Research and Development Ltd.
(Hungary) Pharmaceutical Research Associates Inc. (Canada) Pharmaceutical Research Associates, Inc. (Virginia, United States) Pharmaceutical Research Associates International, Inc. (Canada) Pharmaceutical Research Associates Italia s.r.l. (Italy) Pharmaceutical Research Associates Ltda. (Brazil) Pharmaceutical Research Associates Mexico S. DE R.L. DE C.V. (Mexico) Pharmaceutical Research Associates PTY Limited (Australia) Pharmaceutical Research Associates SARL (France) Pharmaceutical Research Associates Sp.Zoo. (Poland) Pharm Research Associates Russia Ltd. (United Kingdom) Pharm Research Associates RX, Inc. (Canada) Pharm Research Associates (UK) Ltd. (Wales) Pharm Research Limited (United Kingdom)




---



##### 



PRA International Operations, Inc. (Delaware, United States) PRA Pharmaceutical India Private Limited (India) PRA Pharmaceutical (Pty) Ltd. (South Africa) PRA Sub, Inc. (Delaware, United States) Trilass Inc. (Canada)
.; t
.. 

### SERVED: January 13, 2015 .--- --· U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF ALPINE AVIATION, INC. FAA DOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2014-0863

ORDER OF DISMISSAL - ,_-

OnNovember 3, 2014, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Complainant") filed a Complaint. On October 29, 2014, Alpine Aviation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent") filed a Request for Hearing. On December 30, 2014, Respondent filed aMotionto Withdraw Request for Hearing. 14 C.P.R. 

### § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may withdraw a complaint orparty may withdraw arequest for ahearing without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for ahearing and the answer, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." WHEREFORE, Respondent's Motionto Withdraw Request for Hearinghaving been read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Respondent's Motion to WithdrawRequest for Hearing be and is hereby granted; and 2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed withprejudice.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge
Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1

Max Hansen,Respondent's Counsel Max A. Hansen & Associations, P.C. P.O. Box 1301 Dillon, MT 59725 FAX: 406-683-4304 ONE COPY

Jeffrey M. Harper, Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Northwest MountainRegion, ANM-7 1601 Lind Avenue S.W. Renton, W A 98057 TEL: 425-227-2161 FAX: 425-227-1007 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0863 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4421 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the separate 

income tax return form for the earned income credit, to require the 

information required by that form to be included on the appropriate 

income tax return forms, and to require the Internal Revenue Service 

to compute the earned income credit for taxpayers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 19, 2012 

Ms. BROWN of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate 

the separate income tax return form for the earned income credit, to require the information required by that 

form to be included on the appropriate income tax return 

forms, and to require the Internal Revenue Service to 

compute the earned income credit for taxpayers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Easy Earned Income 

5 Tax Credit Act of 2012’’. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 4421 IH

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO THE REPORTING OF EARNED 

2 INCOME CREDIT ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION; 

3 SECRETARY TO COMPUTE EARNED INCOME 

4 CREDIT FOR TAXPAYERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury— 

6 (1) shall not require individuals to complete 

7 Form EIC or any similar form requiring only the in8 formation required on Form EIC, 

9 (2) shall modify the forms on which the credit 

10 allowable by section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code 

11 of 1986 (relating to earned income credit) may be 

12 claimed to require the inclusion of the information 

13 required on Form EIC before the date of the enact14 ment of this Act, and 

15 (3) shall provide a notice on such forms and in 

16 the instructions for such forms that such Secretary 

17 will compute such credit at the taxpayer’s request. 

18 (b) ELECTION FOR SECRETARY TO COMPUTE

19 EARNED INCOME CREDIT.—Section 32 of the Internal 

20 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

21 the following new subsection: 

22 ‘‘(n) ELECTION FOR SECRETARY TO COMPUTE

23 EARNED INCOME CREDIT.—A taxpayer who is eligible for 

24 the credit allowable by this section shall, at such tax25 payer’s election, not be required to compute such credit 

26 on any return of tax imposed by this chapter. In such case, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

3 

•HR 4421 IH

1 the credit shall be computed by the Secretary who shall 

2 mail to the taxpayer a notice stating the amount of the 

3 credit determined by the Secretary. Such election shall be 

4 made by writing ‘EIC’ on the line of the income tax return 

5 form where the amount of the earned income credit is oth6 erwise to be shown.’’. 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The section, and the amend8 ment made by this section, shall apply to returns for tax9 able years beginning after December 31, 2012. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 200

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 200.635 Compliance.

Applicants failing to comply with the requirements of this subpart will make themselves liable to sanctions authorized by regulations, rules or policies governing the program pursuant to which the application was made, including but not limited to denial of further participation in departmental programs and referral to the Department of Justice for suit by the United States for injunctive or other appropriate relief. The Department will enforce compliance through the procedures outlined in 24 CFR part 108.

[37 FR 75, Jan. 5, 1972, as amended at 58 FR 41337, Aug. 3, 1993]