alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramal Abdullah, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 294]

Kane, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered January 31, 2003, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crime of criminal use of a firearm in the first degree.

Based on an incident that occurred in July 1998, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted murder in the second degree, three counts of robbery in the first degree, two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree. County Court sentenced defendant as a second violent felony offender to concurrent prison terms of 10 years for the attempted murder and robbery convictions and three years for the criminal possession of a weapon convictions, and a consecutive term of five years for the criminal use of a firearm conviction. On a prior appeal, this Court vacated the sentence on the criminal use of a firearm conviction and remitted for resentencing on that count (298 AD2d 623 [2002]). After County Court resentenced defendant on that count to a concurrent 10-year term, he appealed.

Defendant’s contentions concerning postrelease supervision are baseless because that was not part of his sentence, nor could it have been because his crimes predated the effective date of the law mandating imposition of such supervision *(see*Penal Law § 70.45; L 1998, ch 1, § 44; *People v Copeland,*281 AD2d 985, 985 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 861 [2001]). Because defendant received the minimum sentence permissible under the law *(see*Penal Law *§ 70.04 [3] [a]), his*sentence was not vindictive, harsh or excessive.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
exv10w14



 






Exhibit 10.14




American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc.

Non-employee Director Compensation Summary




Annual Retainer



We pay our independent directors an annual retainer for serving on the Board and Committees as
follows:




	 	 	 	 	 
	Board member
	 	$	40,000	 
	Audit Committee chair
	 	$	20,000	 
	Audit Committee member
	 	$	10,000	 
	Compensation Committee chair
	 	$	10,000	 
	Compensation Committee member
	 	$	5,000	 
	Nominating/Governance Committee chair
	 	$	7,500	 
	Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee member
	 	$	2,500	 
	Technology/Business Development chair
	 	$	6,000	 
	Technology/Business Development member
	 	$	4,000	 






Stock Options



Our current compensation program also provides for the grant of stock options to our non-employee
directors effective as of the date of the director’s first appointment or election to the board and
on an annual basis thereafter. On May 4, 2006 (the date of our 2006 annual meeting of
stockholders), we granted Mr. Emmitt, Mr. Graf, Mr. Porter, Mr. Timbie and Ms. Weatherman each an
option to purchase 10,000 shares of our common stock. In July 2006 in connection with a
recommendation by our Compensation Committee regarding non-employee director compensation, we
granted Mr. Emmitt, Mr. Graf, Mr. Porter, Mr. Timbie and Ms. Weatherman each an additional option
to purchase 10,000 shares of our common stock. Upon their initial election to the Board in 2006,
we granted Dr. McLellan, Mr. Sharma Ms. Kiernan’s each an option to purchase 40,000 shares of our
common stock. All options were granted under our 2005 Stock Incentive Plan. These options have an
exercise price equal to the fair market value of one share of common stock on the date of grant,
and vest over a three-year period from the date of grant, as long as the non-employee director
continues to serve on the board. Upon a change in control, all outstanding options would become
immediately exercisable in full and remain exercisable for a period of up to five years. The
options granted in 2006 expire seven years from the date of grant. Each non-employee director who
is reelected as a director at the annual meeting of stockholders or continues to serve as a
director after such meeting will be granted an option to purchase a number of shares of our common
stock, as determined by the board each year prior to the annual meeting for such year. The board
anticipates that value (based on customary valuation methods) of future option grants will be
approximately equal to the value of the options to purchase a total of 20,000 shares granted to
independent directors in 2006.




Expenses


In addition, we reimburse our non-employee directors for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred
in connection with attending regularly scheduled meetings.
#### In the Matter of Superior Officers Association of Police Department of County of Nassau, Inc., Petitioner, v State of New York Public Employment Relations Board, Respondent.

[808 NYS2d 89]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, State of New York Public Employment Relations Board, dated May 26, 2004, which reversed a determination of an administrative law judge, dated December *48230, 2003, finding, after a hearing, that the County of Nassau had engaged in an improper labor practice, and dismissed the petitioner’s charge against the County of Nassau.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Judicial review of an administrative determination made after a hearing required by law is limited to whether that determination is supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Jennings v New York State Off. of Mental Health,*90 NY2d 227, 239 [1997]). Substantial evidence has been defined as “such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion or ultimate fact” *(300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]). Moreover, “[t]he courts may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by [an administrative agency] where the evidence is conflicting and room for choice exists” *(Matter of Stork Rest. v Boland,*282 NY 256, 267 [1940]).

Furthermore, judicial review of the interpretation of the respondent, State of New York Public Employment Relations Board (hereinafter PERB), of the Civil Service Law is limited to whether its determination “was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion” (CPLR 7803 [3]; *see Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Lynbrook v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.,*48 NY2d 398, 404 [1979]). “So long as PERB’s interpretation is legally permissible and so long as there is no breach of constitutional rights and protections, the courts have no power to substitute another interpretation” *(Matter of West Irondequoit Teachers Assn. v Helsby,*35 NY2d 46, 50 [1974]).

In the instant case, substantial evidence supported PERB’s determination that the County of Nassau did not violate Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (d) by discontinuing a practice whereby sergeants assigned to the Applicant Investigations Unit of the Nassau County Police Department were assigned County-owned vehicles for use 24 hours a day, seven days per week. The petitioner failed to establish that the County authorized, ratified, or condoned the practice *(see Matter of Cold Spring Harbor Teachers Assn. v New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.,*12 AD3d 442, 443 [2004]; *Matter of Civil Serv. Empl. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO,*36 PERB ¶ 3011 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Skelos, JJ., concur.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

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").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

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, theundersigned has 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 |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-27-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-30-1998
<CASH>                                           8,059
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     25,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               201,613
<PP&E>                                       1,241,727
<DEPRECIATION>                                 717,591
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 956,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          168,706
<BONDS>                                        373,637
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           441
<OTHER-SE>                                     354,716
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   956,473
<SALES>                                         10,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,279
<CGS>                                            8,011
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  156,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,488
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 32,205
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,526
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,679
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,679
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45
        

</TABLE>
#### Diana Zheng, Respondent-Appellant, v Calvin Pan, Appellant-Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 446]

*379In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lebowitz, J.), dated June 10, 2004, as directed him to pay the plaintiff the sums of $750 per month as pendente lite maintenance, $3,745 per month as pendente lite child support, and $10,000 as an interim attorney’s fee, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements *(see*22 NYCRR 670.8 [c] [3]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“Modifications of pendente lite maintenance and child support should rarely be made by an appellate court, and then only under exigent circumstances, such as when a party is unable to meet his or her financial obligations, or when justice otherwise requires” *(Oquendo v Oquendo,*7 AD3d 687, 688 [2004]; *see Chauca v Chauca,*5 AD3d 421, 421-422 [2004]; *Verderame v Verderame,*247 AD2d 609 [1998]). The defendant did not demonstrate that the pendente lite award left him unable to meet his own financial obligations *(see Chauca v Chauca, supra; Aliano v Aliano,*285 AD2d 522 [2001]). The pendente lite award represents an adequate accommodation between the reasonable needs of both parties *(see Oquendo v Oquendo, supra; Aliano v Aliano, supra).*Any inequities perceived by the defendant can best be remedied by a speedy trial *(see Oquendo v Oquendo, supra; Verderame v Verderame, supra).*

In light of the parties’ disparate economic circumstances, the award of an interim attorney’s fee to the plaintiff was a provident exercise of discretion *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]; *O’Shea v O’Shea,*93 NY2d 187, 193 [1999]; *Macagnone v Macagnone,*7 AD3d 680 [2004]; *DeVerna v DeVerna,*4 AD3d 323 [2004]). Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Covello, JJ, concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 231 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 231

   Condemning anti-Semitic vandalism in Westchester County, New York.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 28, 1996

    Mrs. Lowey (for herself, Mr. Gilman, Mrs. Kelly, and Mr. Engel) 
 submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Condemning anti-Semitic vandalism in Westchester County, New York.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
Whereas several homes in Mamaroneck, New York, were vandalized with anti-Semitic 
        graffiti in September;
Whereas, early in 1996, several other homes in the Orienta Point section of 
        Mamaroneck were targeted with anti-Semitic symbols and slurs;
Whereas several other incidents of anti-Semitism have plagued Westchester County 
        this year, including swastikas painted on nature trails in Mamaroneck 
        and carved in a table at Larchmont Public Library;
Whereas community leaders in Westchester County have joined together to condemn 
        these vicious acts of hatred;
Whereas more must be done to combat anti-Semitism and bigotry in our 
        communities; and
Whereas every State should adopt legislation modeled after Federal law that 
        enhances criminal penalties for hate crimes: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress--
            (1) condemns acts of anti-Semitic vandalism in Westchester 
        County and throughout the country;
            (2) commends community leaders and residents in Westchester 
        County for their resolve in combating these terrible acts of 
        cowardice;
            (3) urges the Attorney General to continue to investigate 
        the rampant incidence of anti-Semitic vandalism in Westchester 
        County; and
            (4) calls on every State to adopt legislation modeled after 
        Federal law that enhances criminal penalties for hate crimes.
                                 <all>
```
1

Ogulei, David

From: Morgan, Andrea

Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:39 PM

To: ken.page@illinois.gov; Ray.Pilapil@illinois.gov

Cc: Damico, Genevieve; Ogulei, David

Subject: Call with Veolia and Community Groups to Develop A Public Participation Plan

Ray and Ken, 

We would like to invite you to join us for a conference call with Veolia and community groups in the 

East St Louis area on March 27 at 12pm to discuss the public participation process for the upcoming 

permitting action for Veolia. At this call we will be discussing how the permitting process ran when we 

public noticed a draft permit for Veolia last year, and see if there are any suggestions for 

improvements, or whether there were any activities undertaken that was not particularly useful in 

aiding to community members’ understanding of the process or draft permit itself. We will be focusing 

on the development of a public participation plan and will not discuss any issues regarding the 

substance of the permit we are developing on the call. If you are available and would like to join us,

the information for the call is below. 

Dial in number: (877) 226-9607 

Access code: 824 598 5675# 

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, 

Andrea Morgan 

Andrea Morgan 

Environmental Engineer 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 5 | Air & Radiation Division 

Phone: (312) 353-6058 | Fax: (312) 692-2920
www.gpo.gov

### §283g. Status, privileges, and immunities of the United States

The provisions of article X, section 4(c), and article XI, sections 2 to 9, both inclusive, of the agreement shall have full force and effect in the United States, its Territories and possessions, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, upon acceptance of membership by the United States in, and the establishment of, the Bank.

(Pub. L. 86–147, §9, Aug. 7, 1959, 73 Stat. 301.)
#### § 1010.830 Forfeiture of currency or monetary instruments.

Any currency or other monetary instruments which are in the process of any transportation with respect to which a report is required under § 1010.340 are subject to seizure and forfeiture to the United States if such report has not been filed as required in § 1010.360, or contains material omissions or misstatements. The Secretary may, in his sole discretion, remit or mitigate any such forfeiture in whole or in part upon such terms and conditions as he deems reasonable.
#### Terrence C. Brown, Respondent, v Martin M. Barron et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 3.)

[803 NYS2d 489]

Appeal from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered March 10, 2004 in a personal injury action. The amended judgment awarded plaintiff $184,350.23 upon a jury verdict.

It is hereby ordered that the amended judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: The contention of defendants that Supreme Court erred in denying their motion to strike plaintiff’s supplemental bill of particulars alleging new injuries after the note of issue had been filed is not reviewable on this appeal because the motion papers are not included in the record before us. Defendants, as the appellants, “submitted this appeal on an incomplete record and must suffer the consequences” *(Matter of Santoshia L.,*202 AD2d 1027, 1028 [1994]; *see LeRoi & Assoc. v*
      *1126
      *Bryant,*309 AD2d 1144 [2003]). We have examined defendants’ remaining contentions and conclude that none requires reversal. Present—Kehoe, J.P., Martoche, Pine, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
Exhibit 33.13



|     |  |                                                           
|---- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | 130 S. Jefferson, Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60661 312-233-6440
|    
|    

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONS REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

For the calendar year ending December 31, 2016, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for Wells Fargo Bank (the
Servicer).

National Tax Search, LLC (NTS) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31, 2016 and for the period
from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title 17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the CFR). NTS has used the servicing
criteria communicated to NTS by the Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Only servicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122 (d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the
Applicable Servicing Criteria) are applicable to the activities NTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the SEC
Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered by this report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer using NTSs TaxQ system (the
Platform Transactions).

NTS, as a vendor, has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Period and has
concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

Plante & Moran, PLLC, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the assessment of compliance with the
Applicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

National Tax Search, LLC, as
Vendor to Servicer



|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|LOGO                                         
|                                             
|Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO
January 23, 2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Turner, Appellant.

[805 NYS2d 614]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Braun, J.), rendered January 27, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty is addressed to the sound discretion of the court *(see People v Granton,*236 AD2d 624 [1997]; *People v McGriff,*216 AD2d 330 [1995]). In this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. The defendant’s claim that defense counsel coerced him into pleading guilty is without merit. The defendant knowingly and voluntarily admitted his guilt in a thorough and complete allocution, during which he stated that no one, including defense counsel, had coerced his plea *(see People v Harris,*222 AD2d *504522 [1995]; *People v Richardson,*214 AD2d 624 [1995]; *People v Hall,*195 AD2d 521 [1993]). The Supreme Court’s careful and thorough inquiry and explanation ensured that the defendant’s decision to plead guilty was his own.

The defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea of guilty, and there is no suggestion that the plea was improvident or baseless *(see People v Leo,*255 AD2d 458, 459 [1998]; *People v Menard,*187 AD2d 458, 459 [1992]; *People v DeGraff,*186 AD2d 752, 753 [1992]). Indeed, before accepting the defendant’s plea, the Supreme Court carefully questioned the defendant about his decision to plead guilty and ensured beyond peradventure that he was making an informed, voluntary choice to plead guilty *(cf. People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 16 [1983]). Additionally, the defendant admitted that he was, in fact, guilty of the charged crimes.

The defendant failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the plea proceeding. Defense counsel did not take a position adverse to his client such that there was a conflict of interest between the two. Additionally, the defendant failed to demonstrate that counsel inadequately informed him of the terms of a previous plea offer. On this record, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation *(see People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Adams, J.P., Crane, S. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.