alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lawrence W. Huffman, Respondent, v Adrian B. Coren et al., Appellants.

In a medical malpractice action, defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 5, 1978, which, upon a jury verdict reduced by stipulation, awarded damages to the plaintiff in the total sum of $525,013.30. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Defendants’ claim of ambiguity in the jury charge as to the scope of malpractice damages has not been preserved for appellate review since defendants took no exceptions to the charge at trial. In any event, had the point been preserved, we would have sustained the instruction. Although characterized by some passing infelicity of language, in its overriding thrust the charge represents an accurate statement of the measure of malpractice damages and gave "sufficient instruction to enable the jury to make its findings upon each issue” (see CPLR 4111, subd [b]). Furthermore, we find no merit in defendants’ contention (which was preserved for review) that the jury should have been instructed to "apportion” the damages as between the defendants and a nonparty driver who had previously settled with the plaintiff. The case of *Dubicki v Maresco*(64 AD2d 645) is distinguishable. Apportionment was proper there because the initial tort-feasor, who was a party to the action, was legally responsible to the plaintiff for his entire injury and had a right of contribution from a subsequent tort-feasor who aggravated the original injury. For defendants, however, apportionment is unnecessary since as subsequent tort-feasors they are *ab initio*liable to the plaintiff only for the portion of his injury attributable to their malpractice (see *Zillman v Meadowbrook Hosp. Co.,*45 AD2d 267; *Lopez v Precision Papers,*69 AD2d 832; *Caiazzo v Volkswagenwerk, AG.,*468 F Supp 593, 603). The danger of double recovery for aggravation of injuries was amply prevented by an accurate charge as to the scope of the malpractice damages. As to the contention that defendants were deprived of a fair trial, we conclude that although a number of the trial tactics employed by plaintiff’s counsel were questionable, the misconduct "did not prevent the careful consideration of the evidence by the jury and did not influence its verdict” (see *Reilly v Wright,*55 AD2d 544, 545). We have considered defendants’ *576contention that the verdict was excessive and find it to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Margett, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### [The State ex rel.] Dayton Walther Corporation, Appellant, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio; Grimes, Appellee.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Dayton Walther Corp. v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 120.]

(No. 96-2380

Submitted July 8, 1998

Decided September 16, 1998.)

*Dunlevey, Mahan & Furry, L.P.A., Gary W. Auman, William H. Barney III*and *William P. Allen,*for appellant.

*E.S. Gallon & Associates*and *Richard M. Malone,*for appellee.

The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Douglas and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.

*121Douglas, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part. I would affirm, in part, the judgment of the court of appeals and reverse, in part, the judgment of the court of appeals. In so doing, I would reinstate the order of the commission.

F.E. Sweeney, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
#### In the Matter of Benderson Development Co., Inc., Respondent, v Thomas Logan, as Assessor of the Town of Wappinger, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law to review assessments upon certain real property for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977, the Assessor of the Town of Wappinger appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated April 25, 1979, which reduced the subject assessments. The appeal brings up for review an amended judgment of the same court, dated June 3, 1979, and other related orders. Appeal from judgment dated April 25, 1979, dismissed, without costs or disbursements. This judgment was superseded by the judgment dated June 3, 1979. Judgment, dated June 3, 1979, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. There was no mutual mistake. Under the stipulation of settlement the State equalization rate applies. That rate relates to the prior year’s assessment roll. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Gibbons and Margett, JJ., concur.
11.603 Procedures.

(a) There are two levels of priority for rated orders established by the DPAS, identified by the rating

symbols "DO" and "DX". All DO rated orders have equal priority with each other and take preference

over unrated orders. All DX rated orders have equal priority with each other and take preference

over DO rated and unrated orders (see 15 CFR 700.11). The DPAS regulation contains provisions

concerning the elements of a rated order (see 15 CFR 700.12); acceptance and rejection of rated

orders (see 15 CFR 700.13); preferential scheduling (see 15 CFR 700.14); extension of priority

ratings (flowdown) (see 15 CFR 700.15); changes or cancellations of priority ratings and rated

orders (see 15 CFR 700.16); use of rated orders (see 15 CFR 700.17); and limitations on placing

rated orders (see 15 CFR 700.18).

(b) The Delegate Agencies have been given authority by the Department of Commerce to place rated

orders in support of approved programs (see Schedule I of the DPAS). Other U.S. Government

agencies, Canada, and foreign nations may apply for priority rating authority.

(c) Rated orders shall be placed in accordance with the provisions of the DPAS.

(d) Agency heads shall ensure compliance with the DPAS by contracting activities within their

agencies.

(e) Agency heads shall provide contracting activities with specific guidance on the issuance of rated

orders in support of approved agency programs, including the general limitations and jurisdictional

limitations on placing rated orders (see 15 CFR 700.18 and Executive Order 12919).

(f) Contracting officers shall follow agency procedural instructions concerning the use of rated

orders in support of approved agency programs.

(g) Contracting officers, contractors, or subcontractors at any tier, that experience difficulty placing

rated orders, obtaining timely delivery under rated orders, locating a contractor or supplier to fill a

rated order, ensuring that rated orders receive preferential treatment by contractors or suppliers, or

require rating authority for items not automatically ratable under the DPAS, should promptly seek

special priorities assistance in accordance with agency procedures (see 15 CFR 700.50-700.55 and

700.80).

(h) The Department of Commerce may take specific official actions (Ratings Authorizations,

Directives, Letters of Understanding, Administrative Subpoenas, Demands for Information, and

Inspection Authorizations) to implement or enforce the provisions of the DPAS (see 15 CFR

700.60-700.71).

(i) Contracting officers shall report promptly any violations of the DPAS in accordance with agency

procedures to the Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Room 3876, Washington, DC 20230, Ref: DPAS; telephone: (202) 482-3634 or fax: (202)

482-5650.

Parent topic: Subpart 11.6 - Priorities and Allocations
Exhibit
32.1




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




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of O2 Secure Wireless, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), does
hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:




1.  The
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) of the
Company complies in all material respects with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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






/s/
      Craig C. SellarsCraig
      C. Sellars, President and Chief Executive Officer




Date:
August 13, 2008
#### § 3560.351 General.

This subpart contains policies for Agency monitoring of operations and management at multi-family housing (MFH) projects.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM THERMO
TERRATECH  INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 29, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                MAR-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-29-1996
<CASH>                                71,184
<SECURITIES>                          28,254
<RECEIVABLES>                         47,919
<ALLOWANCES>                           2,917
<INVENTORY>                           27,835
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     185,527
<PP&E>                               129,454
<DEPRECIATION>                        44,845
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       402,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 79,100
<BONDS>                              192,983
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                               1,807
<OTHER-SE>                            91,116
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         402,569
<SALES>                                5,752
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      67,618
<CGS>                                  4,718
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         54,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         299
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1,052
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        3,194
<INCOME-TAX>                           1,514
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    1,458
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           1,458
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.08
        

</TABLE>
#### § 330.102 Basis for certain regulations.

Under the authority of the Plant Protection Act, the Secretary may prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of any plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, article (including baggage, mail, garbage, earth, stone, and quarry products) or means of conveyance if such actions are necessary to prevent the introduction into or the dissemination within the United States of a plant pest or noxious weed.

[66 FR 21058, Apr. 27, 2001]
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned officer of Eyegate Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies to his knowledge that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”) to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and that the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This
certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (“Item
601(b)(32)”) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and the Exchange
Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed “filed”
for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall
not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent
that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.



Date: March 31, 2015



| | /s/ Stephen From                                                           
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Stephen From                                                               
| | President and Chief Executive Officer                                      
| | (Principal executive officer and principal financialand accounting officer)
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74000-74001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30025]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Idaho Panhandle Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 110-343) the Idaho Panhandle 
Resource Advisory Committee will meet Friday, December 3, 2010, at 9 
a.m. in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho for a business meeting. The business 
meeting is open to the public.

DATES: December 3, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The meeting location is the Idaho Panhandle National 
Forests'

[[Page 74001]]

Supervisor's Office, located at 3815 Schreiber Way, Coeur d'Alene, 
Idaho 83815.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ranotta K. McNair, Forest Supervisor 
and Designated Federal Official, at (208) 765-7369.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting agenda will focus on reviewing 
proposals for forest projects and recommending funding during the 
business meeting.
    The public forum begins at 11 a.m.

    Dated: November 22, 2010.
Ranotta K. McNair,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 2010-30025 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### § 4280.41 Environmental review of the application.

The Agency will review the environmental documentation in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970. Intermediaries will be informed by the Agency if additional information is required from the intermediary to complete the environmental review process. The environmental review process must be completed before the application can be considered for approval by the Agency.

[81 FR 11052, Mar. 2, 2016]
#### §§ 4280.449-4280.499 [Reserved]
#### § 407.4 OMB control numbers.

The information collection activity associated with this rule has been submitted to OMB for their review and approval.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Carrie Attaldo, Respondent, v. Delco Appliance Division — General Motors Corporation, Appellant. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Gibson, P. J.

Appeal from a decision awarding benefits for disability found due to lead poisoning, appellant contending that claimant was not exposed to lead or lead fumes in harmful amounts. 'Claimant’s attending physician initially reported disability due to lead poisoning caused by claimant’s exposure to lead in her work as a machine operator, in connection with which she handled lead castings; the report noting, among other symptoms, *“*lead line on gums ” and “ basophilic stippling ”. The physician' adhered to his diagnosis and his opinion respecting causation in his subsequent reports and in his testimony. The physician to whom the employer’s plant physician referred claimant for examination also diagnosed plumbism [lead poisoning] and found the “ blood lead levels * * * definitely elevated ” as reported by two laboratories, this *“*confirming the initial diagnosis of Doctor St. John [the attending physician] ”; although later admitting the possibility of error in the laboratory tests. Subsequently this same consultant reported continued “ definite elevation of blood lead levels ” and accounted for the fact that the content was lower than before by stating that it was “ Doctor Werdein’s belief and mine, that this represents renal clearance of lead due to lapse of time and lack of exposure.” There was testimony by the attending physician that the lead and lead fumes in the quantities to which claimant was exposed, as indicated by independent analyses of the substances used in the work, were sufficient to, and did, cause the disabling condition. Under long familiar principles, the board was entitled to accept the medical opinion evidence and other proof supportive of causation as against the firm denials of causal relation voiced by appellant’s experts, and as against appellant’s attack on claimant’s expert’s qualifications and credibility, which were, of course, for the board’s appraisal. Further, the basic proof rendered operative the presumption of causation. (Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 47.) Appellant’s additional contentions seem to us insubstantial and none are such as to require discussion. Decision affirmed, with costs to the AVorkmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Staley, Jr., JJ., concur in a memorandum decision by Gibson, P. J.
# L_2021180EN.01000101.xml

| 21.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 180/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 180/1

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2021/804

of 20 May 2021

implementing Article 15(3) of Regulation (EU) No 747/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Sudan

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 747/2014 of 10 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Sudan and repealing Regulations (EC) No 131/2004 and (EC) No 1184/2005 (1), and in particular Article 15(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 10 July 2014 the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 747/2014. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 10 July 2014 the Council adopted Regulation (EU) No 747/2014.

| (2) | On 5 March 2021 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1591(2005) approved the removal of one person from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 5 March 2021 the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Committee established pursuant to UNSC Resolution 1591(2005) approved the removal of one person from the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.

| (3) | Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 747/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 747/2014 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 747/2014 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 20 May 2021.

For the Council

The President

A. SANTOS SILVA

---

(1)  
  OJ L 203, 11.7.2014, p. 1.

1

---

ANNEX

In the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 747/2014, the entry for the following person is deleted:

| 3. | SHAREIF, Adam. |
| --- | --- |

3.

SHAREIF, Adam.

---
#### § 4274.345 Letter of conditions.

The Agency will provide the successful intermediary with a letter of conditions listing all requirements for the loan. Immediately after reviewing the conditions and requirements in the letter of conditions, the intermediary must complete, sign, and return the requisite forms provided by the Agency indicating the intermediary's intent to meet the conditions and the request of obligation of funds. If the intermediary identifies certain conditions that cannot be met, the intermediary may propose alternate conditions to the Agency. The Agency must approve in writing of any proposed changes made to the initially issued or proposed letter of conditions prior to acceptance and finalization
Subpart 17.3 - [Reserved]           **Parent topic:** Part 17 - Special Contracting Methods
**Exhibit 23.1**

** **

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of EyeGate Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Form S-8 (No. 333-202207)of our report dated March 31, 2015, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 andfor each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2014, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K,to be filed on or about March 31, 2015. Our report includes an explanatory paragraph about the existence of substantial doubtconcerning the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.

 

/s/ EISNERAMPERLLP

 

New York, New York

March 31, 2015
Pioneer Railcorp Subsidiaries


Alabama Railroad Co. (ALAB)
Alabama & Florida Railway Co., Inc. (AF)
Decatur Junction Railway Co. (DT)
Elkhart & Western Railroad Co. (EWR)
Fort Smith Railroad Co. (FSR)
Gettysburg & Northern Railroad Co. (GET)
Indiana Southwestern Railway Co. (ISW)
Kendallville Terminal Railway Co. (KTR)
Keokuk Junction Railway Co. (KJRY)
Michigan Southern Railroad Company (MSO)
Mississippi Central Railroad Co. (MSCI)
Pioneer Air, Inc. (PAR)
Pioneer Industrial Railway Co. (PRY)
Pioneer Resources, Inc. (PRI)
Pioneer Railroad Services, Inc. (PRS)
Pioneer Railroad Equipment Co., Ltd. (PREL)
Shawnee Terminal Railway Company (STR)
The Garden City Western Railway, Inc. (GCW)
Vandalia Railroad Company (VRRC)
West Michigan Railroad Co. (WMI)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
-0242 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DYLAN MIKKEL OHL,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 18, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 9 2022

02/09/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0242
2009 Short-Term Incentive Plan of Mark E. Haidet



 Exhibit 10.3 
 2009 Short-Term Incentive Plan of Mark E. Haidet 
 2009 STI Goals 
  

			
	Name: Mark Haidet	  	Job Title: CFO
		
	Effective Dates of Plan: 1/1/09 – 12/31/09	  	Business Unit: Corporate Services
		
	STI Potential: 70% of Base Salary	  	Manager: John Heyman

 Goals: 
  

												
	 Goal Description
	  	Weight	 	 	Payout
Timing	  	 Budget
 (show qtrly if applicable)
	  	 Target
 (show qtrly if applicable)
	  	 Comments

	 Company Operating Income – 67% paid at Budget
	  	67	%	 	Annual	  	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 = N/A
 Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A
 Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	  	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 = N/A
 Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A
 Annual = N/A
	  	
						
	 Central G&A expenses as a % of revenue & other operational objectives as determined by the CEO. This portion of bonus is only
paid out if the Operating Income budget is achieved.
	  	33	%	 	Annual	  	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 = N/A
 Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A
 Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	  	 Q1 = N/A
 Q2 = N/A
 Q3 = N/A
 Q4 = N/A
 Annual = [xxxxxx]*
	  	The Central G&A goal has Budget & Target level goals. 50% is paid at Budget & 50% is paid linearly between Budget & Target.

  

	*	Filed under an application for confidential treatment.