alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Unassociated Document


     

    Exhibit
      10.38


    Capital
      Lease Funding, Inc.

    Summary
      of Compensation to 

    Independent
      Directors

    


    


    
      	 	
              2007

            
	
              Annual
                cash retainer

            	
              $31,000(1)

            
	
              Committee
                chair additional retainer

            	
              $6,000(2)

            
	
              Stock
                award

            	
              2,500
                shares(3)

            
	
              Board
                attendance fee

            	
              $1,000
                per meeting(4)

            
	
              Committee
                attendance fee

            	
              $500
                per meeting(5)

            


    

    


    
      	
              (1)

            	
              Except
                for our chairman, Mr. Ranieri, who receives
                $150,000.

            


    

     

    
      	
              (2)

            	
              Except
                for our audit committee chair, who receives
                $10,000.

            


    

    


    
      	
              (3)

            	
              Except
                for
                our audit committee chair, who receives 3,250 shares. All awards
                will vest in three equal annual installments beginning on the first
                anniversary of the grant date.

            


    

    


    
      	
              (4)

            	
              $500
                fee if attended by teleconference.

            


    

    


    
      	
              (5)

            	
              Committee
                attendance fees are not paid for meetings held on the same day as
                a Board
                meeting.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh

Elizabeth M. Welch,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

June 2, 2021

a0526 

# Order

Clerk June 2, 2021

162410

SANDRA BIRD,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 162410

COA: 350311

Oakland CC: 2018

- 166539

- NO

LOUISIANA GREAT LAKES HOLDINGS, LLC,

MCP CONSTRUCTION, LLC, d/b/a

QUADRANTS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and

I.S. NORTH, LLC,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

JOHN DOE LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION

COMPANY,

Defendant.

___________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2020

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Brad Davidson, Respondent, v Waclaw Ambrozewicz et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Farty Action.)

[803 NYS2d 810]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Clemente, J.), entered July 6, 2004 in Sullivan County, which denied defendants’ motion to renew.

On a previous appeal, we affirmed summary judgment to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action (12 AD3d 902 [2004]). Immediately after Supreme Court granted this motion, defendants moved to reargue, claiming that Supreme Court had overlooked facts with respect to the recalcitrant worker defense. This motion was denied in August 2003 and, in September 2003, defendants’ present attorneys were substituted. In April 2004, defendants moved to renew, arguing for the first time that they are exempt from liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) because the building in question qualifies as an owner-occupied residence. Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion concluding that law office failure was insufficient justification for failing to assert this defense on the prior motion. Defendants appeal.

We affirm. “This Court has consistently held that a motion to renew must be based upon newly discovered evidence which existed at the time the prior motion was made, but was unknown to the party seeking renewal, along with a justifiable excuse as to why the new information was not previously submitted” *(Wahl v Grippen,*305 AD2d 707, 707 [2003] [citations omitted]). We first note that defendants did not plead the affirmative defense of a homeowner’s exemption under Labor Law § 240 (1) nor have they sought leave to amend. More importantly, defendants were well aware of the facts which they now claim constitute new evidence *(see Cerasaro v Cerasaro,*9 AD3d 663, 665-666 [2004]; *Wahl v Grippen, supra*at 707). While courts have exercised their discretion to grant renewal in the interest of justice “upon facts which were known to the movant where the movant offers a reasonable justification for failing to submit them on the earlier motion” *(Gomez v Needham Capital*
      *904
      *Group, Inc.,*7 AD3d 568, 569 [2004]), in our view, no reasonable justification has been presented. In their initial motion papers, defendants’ only attempt at justification was that plaintiff misrepresented the nature of defendants’ building. In their reply papers, defendants merely note that the “oversight of defendants’ former counsel” in failing “to assert the [h]omeowner’s exemption as a defense . . . was understandable and therefore excusable.” From the commencement of the underlying action neither the circumstances surrounding the accident nor the applicable principles of law have changed *(see e.g. Bartoo v Buell,*87 NY2d 362, 368 [1996]; *Cannon v Putnam,*76 NY2d 644, 648-651 [1990]). Thus, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in finding defendants’ excuse unreasonable.

Crew III, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
```

[111th Congress Public Law 343]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 124 STAT. 3609]]

Public Law 111-343
111th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To require the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to fully insure 
   Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts. <<NOTE: Dec. 29, 2010 -  [H.R. 
                                6398]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. INTEREST ON LAWYERS TRUST ACCOUNTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 11(a)(1)(B)(iii) of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Act, as added by section 343 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203), is <<NOTE: 12 
USC 1821.>>  amended--
            (1) by redesignating subclauses (I), (II), and (III) as 
        items (aa), (bb), and (cc), respectively, and adjusting the 
        margins accordingly;
            (2) by striking ``means a deposit'' and inserting the 
        following:
                      ``means--
                                    ``(I) a deposit'';
            (3) in item (cc), as so redesignated, by striking the period 
        at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
                                    ``(II) a trust account established 
                                by an attorney or law firm on behalf of 
                                a client, commonly known as an `Interest 
                                on Lawyers Trust Account', or a 
                                functionally equivalent account, as 
                                determined by the Corporation.''.

    (b) <<NOTE: 12 USC 1821 note.>>  Effective Date.--The amendments 
made by subsection (a) shall take effect on December 31, 2010.
SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

    The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with 
the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by 
reference to the latest statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO 
Legislation'' for this Act, submitted for printing in the

[[Page 124 STAT. 3610]]

Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, 
provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on 
passage.

    Approved December 29, 2010.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 6398:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 156 (2010):
            Nov. 30, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 22, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dustin J. Narrod, Appellant.

[804 NYS2d 190]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David D. Egan, J.), rendered October 31, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in the second degree and arson in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

*1062Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and arson in the third degree (§ 150.10 [1]). Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in precluding him from presenting evidence that a third party may have committed the crimes charged based on the court’s determination that defendant failed to establish a “clear link” between the third party and the crimes charged. We reject that contention. The record establishes that, regardless of the court’s use of the “clear link” language, the court properly applied “the general balancing analysis that governs the admissibility of all evidence” and precluded defendant from presenting the proffered evidence because it was based on mere speculation *(People v Primo,*96 NY2d 351, 356 [2001]; *see People v Williams,*291 AD2d 897, 897-898 [2002], *lv denied*97 NY2d 763 [2002]; *People v Joaquin,*242 AD2d 589, 590 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 893 [1998]).

Defendant further contends that the court erred in allowing the arson investigator to testify that he had ruled out accidental causes of the fire. We agree, inasmuch as the expert’s testimony improperly invaded the jury’s province *(see People v Champion,*247 AD2d 901 [1998], *lv denied*91 NY2d 971 [1998]; *People v Avellanet,*242 AD2d 865, 866 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 868 [1997]). We conclude, however, that the evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming and that there is no significant probability that absent the error the jury would have acquitted defendant. Thus, the error is harmless *(see Avellanet,*242 AD2d at 866; *see generally People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).

We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Kehoe, Martoche and Pine, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ACG
HOLDINGS, INC.'S UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE
SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                       0000856710
<NAME>                                                      ACG HOLDINGS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                1,000
<CURRENCY>                                                  U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S><C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                              APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                             1
<CASH>                                                      0
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               66,464
<ALLOWANCES>                                                2,415
<INVENTORY>                                                 11,682
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            79,630
<PP&E>                                                      249,451
<DEPRECIATION>                                              84,727
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              343,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       82,991
<BONDS>                                                     185,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                    1
<OTHER-SE>                                                  (87,779)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                343,491
<SALES>                                                     261,737
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            261,737
<CGS>                                                       226,846
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               226,846
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            276
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            770
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          19,347
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (10,114)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                890
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (11,004)
<DISCONTINUED>                                              350
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (11,354)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.44


Senior Housing Properties
Trust

400 Centre Street

Newton, MA  02458


March 13, 2006


FS Tenant Holding Company Trust

FS Tenant Pool III Trust

400 Centre Street

Newton, MA  02458

Attention Bruce J. Mackey Jr.


RE:                                           Amended
and Restated Master Lease Agreement dated as of January 11, 2002 (as amended,
the “Lease”)


Dear Bruce:


The purpose of this letter is to confirm that,
pursuant to Section 4.1.1(b) of the Lease, Tiffany House was sold on December
31, 2005.  The net proceeds of the sale
were $5,260,424.00.  Accordingly,
effective January 1, 2006, Minimum Rent payable under the Lease shall be
reduced by $526,043.40 per annum.


	
  

  	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ John R. Hoadley

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  John R. Hoadley

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Acknowledged and Agreed

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FS Tenant Holding Company Trust

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  FS Tenant Pool III Trust

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Bruce J. Mackey Jr.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Bruce J. Mackey Jr.

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Treasurer of each of

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  the foregoing entities
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Edwin PERKINS, Jr., aka Mike Egan, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50013.

D.C. No. CR-99-00047-GLT-8.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 6, 2002.

Decided June 18, 2002.

Before KLEINFELD and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Court for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Robert Perkins challenges his conviction for several counts of mail fraud and several counts of wire fraud. The counts arose out of his employment with Gecko Holdings, Inc. (Gecko), a fraudulent telephone-marketing business. Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that the district court improperly instructed the jury on co-schemer liability. We affirm.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to allow a rational fact-finder to determine that Defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. *See United States v. Hernandez-Guardado,*228 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir.2000) (stating standard).

There was evidence that Defendant made extensive misrepresentations to victims regarding Gecko, including that a non-existent Gecko manager had been involved in a successful Internet IPO; that he himself had been involved in that previous IPO; that his own father had invested funds in Gecko; that Goldman Sachs was interested in Gecko; and that Gecko was likely to go public at $8 or $9 a share. Also, Defendant received commission on fraudulent sales made under the name “Bob Johnson” and that he successfully defrauded other victims under the name “Mike Egan.”

We also reject Defendant’s arguments concerning the co-schemer liability instruction for the reasons stated in *United States v. Stapleton,*293 F.3d 1111, filed this date.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,043
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  197,928
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     32,481
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,559
<PP&E>                                       1,086,169
<DEPRECIATION>                               (240,607)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,174,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          336,880
<BONDS>                                        380,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        416
<COMMON>                                         2,580
<OTHER-SE>                                     375,812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,174,550
<SALES>                                      1,373,763
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,394,658
<CGS>                                        1,217,595
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,217,595
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               122,088
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,329
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,783
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,546
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,546
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
        

</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Motor vehicle use map. AshleyNational Forest, Utah. Flaming Gorge Ranger District
** 
2013: Front |Back
2014: Front |Back
2016: Front |Back
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:AS 3/14/
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:000924145
 
October 23, 2017
 ****
#### § 513.2 Dividends.

The fact that the payee of the dividend is not required to pay Irish tax on such dividend because of the application of reliefs or exemptions under Irish revenue laws does not prevent the application of the reduction in rate of United States tax with respect to such dividend. If the dividend would have been subject to Irish tax had the payee thereof derived an income large enough to require payment of tax then liability to Irish tax exists for the purpose of the reduction in rate of United States tax. As to what constitutes a permanent establishment, see Article II(1)(i) of the convention.

[T.D. 8734, 62 FR 53497, Oct. 14, 1997; 63 FR 2723, Jan. 16, 1998]
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Trust and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 26, 2016, byand among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Servicer and Special Servicer, WellsFargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator and WilmingtonTrust, National Association, as Trustee with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2016-NINE (the "Agreement"). Capitalizedterms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.7 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.            A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from September 26,2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performanceper the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2.            To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersignedhas executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank 

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
# L_2019325EN.01018301.xml

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 325/183 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 325/183

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/627 of 15 March 2019 laying down uniform practical arrangements for the performance of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 as regards official controls

(Official Journal of the European Union L 131 of 17 May 2019)

On page 85, in Article 66, in point (b):

for:

for:

‘immediately inform the interested parties such as producers, gatherers and operators of purification centres and dispatch centres, of any change to the location, boundaries or Class of a production area, of its temporary or final closure, or of the application of measures as referred to in Article 60(2).’,

read:

read:

‘immediately inform the interested parties such as producers, gatherers and operators of purification centres and dispatch centres, of any change to the location, boundaries or Class of a production area, of its temporary or final closure, or of the application of measures as referred to in Article 62(2).’.

---