alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: June 25, 2015 519838

________________________________ In the Matter of FREDDIE HARRIS, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DIVISION OF PAROLE, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: May 5, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ.

__________ Freddie Harris, Attica, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Jonathan D. Hitsous of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Feldstein, J.), entered July 22, 2014 in Franklin County, which, among other things, denied petitioner's application for an order to show cause to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Petitioner, an inmate, sought to commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding to, among other things, challenge a determination revoking his parole. Supreme Court declined to issue the order to show cause, but granted petitioner leave to serve an amended petition. Petitioner filed an amended petition and Supreme Court denied his application for an order to show cause and dismissed the petition and amended petition. Petitioner now appeals. Generally, no appeal lies from the denial of an ex parte application for an order to show cause (see Matter of Walker v Fischer, 104 AD3d 1001, 1002 [2013]; Matter of Tafari v Rock, 87-2- 519838

AD3d 792, 792 [2011], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 950 [2011]). Petitioner's attempt to appeal falls within this rule, and his appeal must be dismissed (see Matter of Walker v Fischer, 104 AD3d at 1002). Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
exv4w5



 







Exhibit 4.5




CIRRUS LOGIC, INC. 2006 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

NOTICE OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTION




	 	 	 	 	 
	Holder’s Name:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Holder’s Address:
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 

	 	 






     You (“Holder”) are hereby granted an option (this “Option”) to purchase shares of Common Stock
of Cirrus Logic, Inc., subject to the terms and conditions of the Cirrus Logic, Inc. 2006 Stock
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and the related Stock Option Agreement (the “Option Agreement”), as set
forth below. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in
the Plan.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Grant Number:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date of Grant:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Vesting Commencement Date:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Vesting Schedule:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Shares           Vest Type           Vest Date           Expiration






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Exercise Price per Share:
	 	$	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Total Number of Shares Granted:
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Total Exercise Price:
	 	$	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Type of Option:	 	___ Incentive Stock Option
	 	 	___ Nonstatutory Stock Option
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Term/Expiration Date:	 	10th anniversary of Date of Grant  






     By your signature or electronic acceptance of this Notice of Grant and the signature of the
Company’s representative below, you and the Company hereby acknowledge your receipt of this Option
granted on the Date of Grant indicated above, which has been issued to you under the terms and
conditions of the Plan and the Option Agreement. You further acknowledge receipt of a copy of the
Plan and Option Agreement and agree to all of the terms and conditions of the Plan and the Option
Agreement, which are incorporated in this Option by reference.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	HOLDER:	 	 	 	CIRRUS LOGIC, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	By:	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Signature

	 	 	 	 	 	David D. French
	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Printed Name
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Date
#### § 182.660 Recipient.

Recipient means any individual, corporation, partnership, association, unit of government (except a Federal agency) or legal entity, however organized, that receives an award directly from a Federal agency.
null

2017-09-26

308.20587

eng - Argued: 2017-09-26. Docket number: 16-1538
How Does WEF Wo

InputsThe user enters daincluding:

Wind Energy Online CalcuAnalysis of WThe National Renewa

Wind Energy Finance

calculator, to enable q

of potential utility-sca

Features

• An extensive help section explains each entry

and gives reasonable defaults when the userlacks specific information.

• The program calculates Internal Rate of

Return (IRR) and Debt Service CoverageRatios (DSCRs). The program can alsocalculate minimum energy contract pricewhen the user enters minimum IRR andDSCR.

• WEF easily handles a variety of tax issues

such as the Production Tax Credit (PTC) andthe Renewable Energy Production Incentive(REPI). The program utilizes appropriatedepreciation schedules.

• Exportable summary calculations and cash
First

Input

Screen
Extract 

Inflationbox. The Start yeaare assused to 
PIX10629
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

March 26, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132860 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132860 

 COA: 265199 

Wayne CC: 05-002106-01

DARRYL ANTHONY MORGAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 14, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0319 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

March 26, 2007 

 Clerk
#### § 766.101 Data utilization.

DOE shall use the records from the Toll Enrichment Services System (TESS) and other records maintained by the Oak Ridge Operations Office in order to determine the total SWUs purchased from DOE for all purposes. DOE shall use records from TESS, relevant records of domestic utilities, and such other information as DOE deems to be reliable and probative in determining the number of SWUs that were purchased by each domestic utility prior to October 24, 1992. A domestic utility shall be considered to have purchased a SWU from DOE if the SWU was produced by DOE but purchased by the domestic utility from another source. DOE shall consider a purchase to have occurred upon the delivery of a SWU to the domestic utility purchasing the SWU. A domestic utility shall not be considered to have purchased a SWU from DOE if the SWU was purchased by the domestic utility but subsequently sold to another source.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 15, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 21
- 00086
- CV BRIDGET PARSON , Appellant

V. BECKY COLE , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 15
- 01563
- B MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns As reflected in her notice of appeal and amended notic e of appeal, appellant appeals from the trial court’s order denying her motion to recuse and a proposed order appointing a post

-

judgment receiver. Because it appeared these orders are not subject to appeal, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal. We instructed appellant to file a letter brief addressing the Court’s concern. Appellant complied. An order denying a motion to recuse is reviewable only from appeal of a final judgment. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 18a(j)(1)(A). Additionally, a non
- signed– 2

–

proposed order appointing a post

- judgment receiver presents nothing for review as only signed judgments are appealable

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1 (appellate timetable runs from the date the judgment is signed). Although appellant filed a letter brief, she fails to demonstrate this Court’s jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

210086 F

. P 05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
BRIDGET PARSON, Appellant
No. 05

- 21

- 00086

- CV V. BECKY COLE, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 15

- 01563

- B. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 15th day of March , 2021

.
| (logo) WELLS 

            FARGO | Corporate Trust Services

 

MAC R1204-010

9062 Old Annapolis Road

Columbia, MD 21045

 

Tel: 410 884-2000

Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation 

60 Wall Street, 

New York, NY 10005

 

RE:  Annual Statement of Compliance

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and Paying Agent for the Moffett Towers Loan Combination (in such capacities, “Wells Fargo”), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2014 (the “reporting period”):

 

 

(a)     A review of Wells Fargo’s activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the “Servicing Agreement(s)”) has been made under my supervision; and

 

(b)     To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material respects throughout the reporting period, except as noted on Schedule B.

 

 

 

March 4, 2015

 

/s/ Brian Smith

Brian Smith

Vice President

 

 

To:   Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation 

 

Schedule A

 

 

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series

 

 

1.       Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 1, 2013 by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC as Special Servicer, and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent, Trustee and Custodian relating to the Series COMM 2013-LC6 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates relating to the Moffett Towers Loan Combination, a pari passu portion of which is included in the Series COMM 2013-CCRE7 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates transaction.

 

To: Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation 

 

 

Schedule B

 

 

Material Non-Compliance with Servicing Obligations

 

Not Applicable
#### § 200.410 Collection of unallowable costs.

Payments made for costs determined to be unallowable by either the Federal awarding agency, cognizant agency for indirect costs, or pass-through entity, either as direct or indirect costs, must be refunded (including interest) to the Federal Government in accordance with instructions from the Federal agency that determined the costs are unallowable unless Federal statute or regulation directs otherwise. See also §§ 200.300 through 200.309 in subpart D of this part.

[85 FR 49562, Aug. 13, 2020]
#### In re SLATER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

December 11, 1914.)

In the matter of the compulsory judicial settlement of the estate of William N. Slater, deceased. (Appeal No. 2.)

PER CURIAM.

Order of the Surrogate’s Court of Westchester County of October 14, 1914, modified, so as to enjoin and restrain Sarah B. Slater, now Sarah S. Holzworth, individually and as executrix of the estate of William N. Slater, deceased, from transferring, or attempting to transfer, any of the stock of the Port Chester Lumber Company, held by her as such executrix, or from voting the stock of said company at any meeting of the stockholders thereof, called previous to the institution of these proceedings, or which may thereafter be called at her instance, or from interfering with the ordinary, customary routine of the business and policy of the said corporation, until such time as the proceedings for the final judicial settlement of the estate of said William N. Slater, now pending, have been finally terminated by a decree therein, and such distribution made thereunder as the court may direct, and, as so modified, the said order is affirmed, without costs. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1112.
PGI PART 16 – TYPES OF CONTRACTS       PGI SUBPART 16.5 – INDEFINITE-DELIVERY CONTRACTS                                                         PGI 16.504 Indefinite-quantity contracts.    PGI SUBPART 16.5 – INDEFINITE-DELIVERY CONTRACTS    *(Revised January 11, 2022 through PROCLTR 2021-15)* PGI 16.504 Indefinite-quantity contracts.    (a)(1)(S-90) Establishing guaranteed minimum quantities and recording obligations.       (B) Monthly review and reporting. Procuring organizations shall access Guaranteed Minimum (https://dlamil.dps.mil/sites/Acquisition/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?viewid=e9b41126%2Dd28f%2D4f87%2Da9f7%2Dddf914a82406&id=%2Fsites%2FAcquisition%2FShared%20Documents%2FGuaranteed%20Minimum); and       (i) Use instructions to query guaranteed minimums in ECC and SRM; and       (ii) Complete the Procuring Org Monthly Reporting Template and submit to the DLA Acquisition Procurement Process & Systems Division on a monthly basis (by the 10th of the month for the preceding month).
#### ROSENSTEIN, Respondent, v. McCUTCHEON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 29, 1914.)

Action by Meyer Rosenstein against James Mc-Cutcheon.

PER CURIAM.

The proofs in this case fail to show any causal connection between the accident and the alleged defects in the appliances of the elevator. It was error, therefore, to submit this question to the jury as bearing upon the claim of the defendant’s negligence. This error is serious enough to require a reversal of the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial. Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted; costs to abide the event. See, also, 155 App. Div. 278, 140 N. Y. Supp. 315.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,430
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  333,139
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    364,265
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               722,296
<PP&E>                                         540,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                 374,156
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 897,262
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          754,946
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,816
<OTHER-SE>                                    (17,481)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   897,262
<SALES>                                        583,146
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               583,146
<CGS>                                          340,093
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  340,093
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0<F1>
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,328
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
<FN>
<F1>Although the Company's tax liability in first quarter 1998 was $6,066, this
amount was offset in its entirety by loss carryforwards from previous years.
The net tax liability for the quarter ending March 31, 1998 is zero.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 200.210 Pre-award costs.

For requirements on costs incurred by the applicant prior to the start date of the period of performance of the Federal award, see § 200.458.
Schedule of Non-Employee Directors' Annual Compensation



 EXHIBIT 10.3 
 MASTERCARD INCORPORATED 
 SCHEDULE OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ ANNUAL COMPENSATION

 Effective May 31, 2006 
  

				
	 ANNUAL RETAINER
	  	AMOUNT
	 Service as a Director
	  	$	70,000
	 Service as Chairman of the Board
	  	$	105,000
		
	 COMMITTEE SERVICE RETAINER
	  	AMOUNT
	 Audit Committee Member
	  	$	10,000
	 Human Resources and Compensation Committee Member
	  	$	5,000
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Member
	  	$	5,000
	 Audit Committee Chairperson
	  	$	20,000
	 Human Resources and Compensation Committee Chairperson
	  	$	10,000
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chairperson
	  	$	10,000
		
	 EQUITY AWARDS(1)
	  	AMOUNT
		  	 	 
	 Director
	  	$	100,000
	 Chairman of the Board
	  	$	150,000

  

	 	(1)	Represents a grant of deferred stock units under the MasterCard Incorporated 2006 Non-Employee Director Equity Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), adopted by stockholders of
MasterCard Incorporated (the “Company”) at the annual meeting of stockholders on July 18, 2006. Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, on the date of an annual meeting of stockholders in each year for so long as the Plan remains in
effect, each non-employee director who is elected at such annual meeting or whose term of office will continue after the date of such annual meeting, will automatically be awarded a number of deferred stock units determined by dividing $100,000
($150,000 in the case of the Chairman of the Board) by the average of the high and low prices for the Company’s Class A common stock on the exchange on which the shares are principally traded for the date of such annual meeting of
stockholders.
H. Res. 803

In the House of Representatives, U.S., 

May 9, 2006.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the 

bill (H.R. 1499) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow members of the Armed Forces 

serving in a combat zone to make contributions to their individual retirement plans even if the compensation on which 

such contribution is based is excluded from gross income, and 

for other purposes’’, with the Senate amendment thereto, 

shall be considered to have been taken from the Speaker’s 

table to the end that the Senate amendment thereto be, and 

the same is hereby, agreed to with an amendment as follows:

At the end of the Senate amendment add the following: 

On page 3, after line 3 of the House engrossed bill, 

insert the following: 

1 (c) CONTRIBUTIONS FOR TAXABLE YEARS ENDING

2 BEFORE ENACTMENT.—

3 (1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any taxpayer 

4 with respect to whom compensation was excluded 

5 from gross income under section 112 of the Internal 
2

•HRES 803 EH 

1 Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year begin2 ning after December 31, 2003, and ending before 

3 the date of the enactment of this Act, any contribu4 tion to an individual retirement plan made on ac5 count of such taxable year and not later than the 

6 last day of the 3-year period beginning on the date 

7 of the enactment of this Act shall be treated, for 

8 purposes of such Code, as having been made on the 

9 last day of such taxable year. 

10 (2) WAIVER OF LIMITATIONS.—

11 (A) CREDIT OR REFUND.—If the credit or 

12 refund of any overpayment of tax resulting 

13 from a contribution to which paragraph (1) ap14 plies is prevented at any time by the operation 

15 of any law or rule of law (including res judi16 cata), such credit or refund may nevertheless be 

17 allowed or made if the claim therefor is filed be18 fore the close of the 1-year period beginning on 

19 the date that such contribution is made (deter20 mined without regard to paragraph (1)). 

21 (B) ASSESSMENT OF DEFICIENCY.—The 

22 period for assessing a deficiency attributable to 

23 a contribution to which paragraph (1) applies 

24 shall not expire before the close of the 3-year 

25 period beginning on the date that such con-
3

•HRES 803 EH 

1 tribution is made. Such deficiency may be as2 sessed before the expiration of such 3-year pe3 riod notwithstanding the provisions of any other 

4 law or rule of law which would otherwise pre5 vent such assessment. 

6 (3) INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLAN DE7 FINED.—For purposes of this subsection, the term 

8 ‘‘individual retirement plan’’ has the meaning given 

9 such term by section 7701(a)(37) of such Code. 

Attest:

Clerk.
# EUR-Lex - 31992D0141 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31992D0141

**92/141/EEC: Commission Decision of 17 February 1992 approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by France (Only the French text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 058 , 03/03/1992 P. 0029 - 0029 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 17 February 1992 approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by France (Only the French text is authentic) (92/141/EEC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/539/EEC of 15 October 1990 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs (1), as last amended by Directive 91/496/EEC (2), and in particular Article 3 (2) thereof,

Whereas by letter dated 30 July 1991 France transmitted a plan to the Commission;

Whereas the plan has been examined and found to meet the requirements of Directive 90/539/EEC, and in particular Annex II thereof;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The plan submitted by France for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs is hereby approved.

Article 2

France shall bring into force by 1 May 1992 the laws, regulations and administrative provisions for implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to France. Done at Brussels, 17 February 1992. For the Commission

Ray MAC SHARRY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 303, 31. 10. 1990, p. 6. (2) OJ No L 268, 24. 9. 1991, p. 56.