alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Albert Manne et al., Appellants, v Museum of Modern Art, Respondent.

[833 NYS2d 499]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered March 21, 2006, upon the jury’s special verdict, in favor of defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A jury verdict should not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached its conclusion upon any fair interpretation of the evidence *(see Nicastro v Park,*113 AD2d 129 [1985]; *Cornier v Spagna,*101 AD2d 141, 149 [1984]). Disputes as to proof are “for the jury to resolve in assessing all of the evidence as well as the credibility of the witnesses” *(Niewieroski v National Cleaning Contrs.,*126 AD2d 424, 425 [1987], *lv denied*70 NY2d 602 [1987]). Here, the disputed factual issues and any inconsistencies between plaintiffs trial testimony and his prior testimony were placed before the jury, whose resolution of any conflicting evidence is entitled to deference, and is more than amply supported in the record.

There was no error in the trial court’s refusal to give a missing documents charge since plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that the documents in question actually existed and were under defendant’s control *(Crespo v New York City Hous. Auth.,*222 AD2d 300, 301 [1995]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.
§ 594.20 Submission procedures. ( a ) *Use of NOFAs.* The Department will publish a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) in the Federal Register for each funding competition under this program, indicating the objective of the competition; the amount of funding available; the application procedures, including the eligible applicants and activities to be funded; and any special conditions applicable to the competition, including the requirements for the match. The NOFA also will describe the maximum points to be awarded under each evaluation criterion, for the purpose of ranking applications, and any special factors to be considered in assigning the points to each criterion.
( b ) Applications shall be submitted in accordance with the time, place, and content described in the NOFA.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2535-0084)
Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 89 Filed 04/09/10 Page 1 of 3Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 89 Filed 04/09/10 Page 2 of 3Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 89 Filed 04/09/10 Page 3 of 3
§ 28.25 Complaint. ( a ) *General.* Upon obtaining approval from the Department of Justice, the General Counsel or designee may issue a complaint to the respondent. The complaint shall be mailed, by registered or certified mail, or shall be delivered through such other means by which delivery may be confirmed. The complaint shall also be filed simultaneously with the Office of Hearings and Appeals in accordance with § 26.30(a) of this chapter.
( b ) *Complaint.* The complaint shall include: ( 1 ) The allegations of liability against the respondent, including the statutory basis for liability, the claims or statements at issue, and the reasons why liability arises from those claims or statements;
( 2 ) A statement that the required approval to issue the complaint was received from the Department of Justice as required by 24 CFR 28.20;
( 3 ) The amount of penalties and assessments for which the respondent may be held liable;
( 4 ) A statement that the respondent may request a hearing by submitting a written response to the complaint;
( 5 ) The addresses to which a response must be sent in accordance with § 26.38 of this title; and
( 6 ) A statement that failure to submit an answer within 30 days of receipt of the complaint may result in the imposition of the maximum amount of penalties and assessments sought without right of appeal.
( c ) *Parts 26 and 28.* A copy of this part 28 and part 26, subpart B of this chapter, shall be included with the complaint.
( d ) *Obligation to preserve documents.* Upon receipt of the complaint, the respondent is required to preserve and maintain all documents and data, including electronically stored data, within their possession or control that may relate to the allegations in the complaint. The Department shall also preserve such documents or data upon the issuance of the complaint.
[73 FR 76832, Dec. 17, 2008, as amended at 87 FR 8197, Feb. 14, 2022]
§ 55.10 Limitations on HUD assistance in wetlands. ( a ) When the proposed project includes new construction activities (including grading, clearing, draining, filling, diking, impounding, and related activities for any structure or facilities including the siting of new manufactured housing units) that will have a direct impact to onsite wetlands identified by the process described in § 55.9, compliance with this part requires completion of the 8-step decision making process in § 55.20 to address wetland impacts.
( b ) When the proposed project may indirectly affect wetlands by modifying the flow of stormwater, releasing pollutants, or otherwise changing conditions that contribute to wetlands viability, the significance of these impacts must be evaluated and the impacts minimized through best management practices. If the project site includes wetlands that will not be impacted by new construction, HUD strongly encourages measures to preserve such wetlands from future impacts, including by obtaining a restrictive covenant, conservation easement, or other mechanism.
( c ) When the proposed project may indirectly affect off-site wetlands, impacts should be minimized to the extent practicable. While this part does not require further decision making to address these effects under the authority of Executive Order 11990, measures to address offsite wetlands impacts may be necessary to comply with related laws and authorities including the Endangered Species Act or to address significant impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act.
[89 FR 30908, Apr. 23, 2024]
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41011

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LAWANZA CRAIG LILLIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:96-CR-105-2

- - - - - - - - - -

June 16, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court appointed counsel for Lawanza Craig Lillie has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R.

42.2.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as


Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002






| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (iii) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of
    the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the
    Report) fully complies with the requirements of
    Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the
    Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|
| | (iv) the information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                  



| |     |                    
| | --- | -------------------
| | By: | /s/ James A. Calder

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| | James A. Calder        
| | Chief Financial Officer



79
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRAFICO AG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NANCY YARBROUGH DOSS, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-09-2773 JCS (EMC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST TO EXCUSE ATTENDANCE

AT SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

By letter dated January 26, 2010, Defendant NANCY YARBROUGH DOSS requested to be

excused from personally appearing at the settlement conference scheduled for February 25, 2010. 

No opposition was filed by any party.

Upon consideration of the request, the Court finds good cause for excusing personal

attendance. Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Defendant NANCY YARBROUGH DOSS be

available by telephone from 9:30 a.m. Pacific Time until further notice on February 25, 2010.

If the Court concludes that the absence of Defendant NANCY YARBROUGH DOSS is

impeding the settlement conference, the Court may continue the settlement conference and may

order personal attendance by each party including Defendant NANCY YARBROUGH DOSS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2010 _______________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02773-JCS Document 37 Filed 02/16/10 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of the Raymond Lee Organization, Inc., Appellant, v Louis J. Lefkowitz, as Attorney-General of the State of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, New York County, entered January Janu1978, denying a motion to quash a nonjudicial subpoena duces tecum and granting a cross motion to compel compliance with the subpoena, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent only of limiting Item No. 1 to the period from October 7, 1976, and petitioner is directed to comply with the subpoena, as modified, within 10 days after service upon petitioner by respondent of a copy of this order with notice of entry, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The Attorney-General began an investigation of the petitioner to determine if it was in violation of section 50 of the Civil Rights Law in that it used the name, portrait or *972picture of any living person without prior consent. In furtherance of the investigation, a subpoena duces tecum was served upon petitioner requesting the production of: "Copies of all literature, brochures, documents, advertisements and other promotional material used by RLO [Raymond Lee Organization] for the purpose of advertising the company’s services and which contain the names, portraits or pictures of any living persons not employed by RLO; * * * All written consents of any such persons to the use of their names, portraits or pictures for RLO’s advertising purpose; and * * * All revocations of such written consents by such persons”. It is to be noted that in July, 1977 an Administrative Law Judge of the Federal Trade Commission found petitioner to be engaged in the unauthorized use of pictures and correspondence. In addition, it was found that at least one individual’s request that his letter not be used by petitioner was not honored. The proceeding against petitioner by the Federal Trade Commission, together with the unheeded request made of petitioner by an individual, demonstrates that the Attorney-General has adequate basis for the issuance of its subpoena and, other than the limitation we have imposed,* compliance with the subpoena as issued is warranted (see *Matter of Lee Organization v Lefkowitz,*60 AD2d 806, and cases cited therein). Concur— Lupiano, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Lane and Sandler, JJ.

*

 While the Attorney-General claims that he only intended the subpoena to be directed to materials used from October 7, 1976, the subpoena itself is unlimited as to the scope of time involved. Without such time limitation, the subpoena in the case at bar would be too broad.
#### ROBERTS, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 16, 1903.)

Action by Josephine M. Roberts, as administratrix, etc., of Mortimer Roberts, deceased, against the City of New York.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
§ 570.492 State's reviews and audits. ( a ) The state shall make reviews and audits including on-site reviews, of units of general local government as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the requirements of section 104(e)(2) of the Act.
( b ) In the case of noncompliance with these requirements, the State shall take such actions as may be appropriate to prevent a continuance of the deficiency, mitigate any adverse effects or consequences and prevent a recurrence. The state shall establish remedies for units of general local government noncompliance.
#### Hyman Bloomberg, appellee, v. Erie Furniture Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,108.

Action of forcible detainer. Judgment for possession. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Bernard P. Barasa, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed May 28, 1923.

Jacob Levy, for appellant. Brown, Fox & Blumberg, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### (A) In the Matter of the Arbitration between David Bleier et al., and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation. (B) In the Matter of the Arbitration between William Z. Powell et al., and Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation.

[In each action.] Motion for a stay denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
Exhibit 10.3


 


AMENDMENT
NO. 1


[EMPLOYMENT][SEVERANCE]
AGREEMENT


 


	
   

  	
  November       ,
  2010

  



 


[Name]


c/o Cobalt International Energy, Inc.


Two Post Oak Central


1980 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1200


Houston, TX  77056


 


Dear [Name]:


 


In connection with the initial public
offering (the “IPO”) of shares of common stock of
Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (the “Company”),
you entered into an [employment][severance] agreement with the Company dated as
of [October 23, 2009](1) (the “[Employment][Severance]
Agreement”).


 


Pursuant to Annex II of the
[Employment][Severance] Agreement, you agreed not to transfer a specified
number of shares of Company common stock issued to you in connection with the
IPO.  We are pleased to inform you that
Annex II of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows.


 


The references to “[80 %]”(2) in
the definition of “Specified Number” are hereby amended effective immediately
to be “[60 %]”(3).


 


This Amendment No. 1 to the
[Employment][Severance] Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware.  


 






(1)  Mr. Bryant’s amendment will provide:
November 12, 2009.


(2)  Mr. Bryant’s amendment will provide:
90%.


(3)  Mr. Bryant’s amendment will provide:
70%.


 

















 


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  COBALT INTERNATIONAL
  ENERGY, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:
#### Brown *v.*Cole.

July 11, 1912.

Evans, P. J.

The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendant from prosecuting a distress warrant and also a warrant to dispossess him as a tenant holding over, on the ground that he was a purchaser of the land and not a tenant, and was unable to give the statutory bond to prevent his dispossession as' a tenant holding over. The defendant in his answer admitted that the plaintiff went into possession of the land as a purchaser, but averred that he had not paid any of the purchase-money, and that subsequently he had attorned to the defendant, and that the rent was past due. On a motion to dissolve the restraining order, the court, after hearing evidence, passed an order dissolving the temporary restraining order unless the plaintiff gave bond conditioned to pay to the defendant the rent. If the plaintiff failed to give this bond, then, upon the defendant’s giving bond conditioned to pay the plaintiff such damages as may be assessed on the final trial, the defendant was awarded possession of the land until the further order of the court, and the sheriff was directed to place him in possession. *Held:*

1. There was no abuse of discretion in dissolving the temporary restraining order upon the plaintiff’s failure to give bond. *Zorn*v. *Murray,*127 *Ga.*389 (56 S. E. 454).

2. That, although it would be the duty of the sheriff to proceed to execute the dispossessory warrant, as provided by the statute, upon the failure of the plaintiff to give the bond required by the order, it was error for the court to grant a mandatory order ejecting the plaintiff from the land, and putting the defendant in possession. *Kerr*v. *Black,*137 *Ga.*832 (74 S. E. 535). Accordingly, the judgment refusing an injunction is affirmed, with the direction that the order be modified by vacating that part of it directing that the defendant be put in possession of ¡the land upon the terms indicated in the order.

*Judgment affirmed, with direction.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*434Petition for injunction. Before Judge Fite. Dade superior court. March 20, 1912.

*J. P. Jacoway*and *Foust & Payne,*for plaintiff.

*H. P. Lumpkin, Sam P. Maddox,*and *W. U. Jacoway,*for defendant.
§ 594.23 Approval and certification procedures. ( a ) *Approval of application.* HUD's acceptance of an application for review does not imply a commitment to provide funding. HUD will provide notification of whether a project will be funded in accordance with the criteria and procedures set out in the applicable NOFA.
( b ) *Certifications.* In the absence of independent evidence that tends to challenge in a substantial manner the certifications made by the applicant pursuant to § 594.30, the required certifications will be accepted by HUD.
However, if independent evidence is available that tends to challenge in a substantial manner an applicant's certification, HUD may require further information or assurances to be submitted in order to determine whether the applicant's certification is satisfactory.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 106]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ106.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 1022]]

Public Law 110-106
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the authorization for establishing 
a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor veterans 
  who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of the United 
             States. <<NOTE: Oct. 25, 2007 -  [H.R. 995]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 40 USC 8903 note.>> EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR 
                              ESTABLISHING DISABLED VETERANS 
                              MEMORIAL.

    Public Law 106-348 is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) by striking ``The establishment'' and inserting 
                ``Except as provided in subsection (e), the 
                establishment''; and
                    (B) by striking ``the Commemorative Works Act (40 
                U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)'' and inserting ``chapter 89 of 
                title 40, United States Code'';
            (2) in subsection (d)--
                    (A) by striking ``section 8(b) of the Commemorative 
                Works Act (40 U.S.C. 1008(b))'' and inserting ``section 
                8906 of title 40, United States Code'';
                    (B) by striking ``or upon expiration of the 
                authority for the memorial under section 10(b) of such 
                Act (40 U.S.C. 1010(b)),''; and
                    (C) by striking ``section 8(b)(1) of such Act (40 
                U.S.C. 1008(b)(1)'' and inserting ``8906(b)(2) or (3) of 
                such title''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

    ``(e) Termination of Authority.--Notwithstanding section 8903(e) of 
title 40, United States Code, the authority to establish a memorial 
under this section shall expire on October 24, 2015.''.

    Approved October 25, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 995:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE REPORTS: No. 110-165 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Mar. 5, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 24, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                 Statement Re: Computation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended                Six Months Ended
                                                    July 1,         June 25,          July 1,        June 25,
                                                     2001            2000              2001           2000
                                                 ----------------------------      ---------------------------
(In thousands, except per share amounts)
<S>                                              <C>            <C>                <C>            <C>

Average shares outstanding - Basic                    4,324            4,812            4,324           5,051

Shares issuable upon the exercise of
  Outstanding stock options and warrants                 10                -                6              11
                                                 -----------    -------------      -----------    ------------

Weighted average shares outstanding - Diluted         4,334            4,812            4,330           5,062
                                                 ===========    =============      ===========    ============


Net income                                        $     914      $     1,092        $   1,762      $    2,298
                                                 ===========    =============      ===========    ============

Basic earnings per share                          $    0.21      $      0.23        $    0.41      $     0.45
                                                 ===========    =============      ===========    ============

Diluted earnings per share                        $    0.21      $      0.23        $    0.41      $     0.45
                                                 ===========    =============      ===========    ============
</TABLE>





















                                       11