alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (a) | A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 has been made under my supervision. |
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period. |

|                                                                                                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                           |
| /s/ Ryan M. Hershberger                                                                                                   |
| Ryan M. HershbergerAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2017-A |
Home1998 Treaties and Agreements...Benin (98-723) Defense Cooperation

# 									Benin (98-723) Defense Cooperation							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

July 23, 1998

Defense

Agreement effected by exchange of notes at Cotonou June 24 and July 23, 1998; entered into force July 23, 1998.
Download agreement						 [2 MB]

Tags

BeninDefense

Back to Top
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Webster, Appellant.

[803 NYS2d 79]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), rendered October 8, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

By failing to object, by failing to make specific objections, and by failing to request any further relief after objections were sustained, defendant has not preserved his present challenges to various evidence and to portions of the People’s summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find the challenged evidence relevant to issues raised at trial *(see e.g. People v Washington,*259 AD2d 365, 365 [1999], *lv denied*93 NY2d 1006 [1999]), and the challenged summation remarks fair comment on the evidence and responsive to defense arguments *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D'Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]). To the limited extent that any of the com*202mends may be viewed as inappropriate, in each of those instances the court took curative actions that prevented any prejudice, especially since certain of the prosecutor’s arguments to which objections were sustained were not improper.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.
#### C. Richard Stafford, Appellant, v Robert H. Reiner et al., Respondents.

[804 NYS2d 114]

In an action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J), entered June 29, 2004, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 16, 2004, granting that branch of the motion of the defendant Donald L. Schuck which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him, and the motion of the defendant Bronstein, Van Veen and Bronstein, EC., and the separate motion of the defendants Robert H. Reiner, Behavioral Associates, and Robert Reiner Psychologist, EC., pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment *(see*CPLR 5520 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, even accepting as true the facts alleged in the complaint and affording him the benefit of every possible favorable inference *(see 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co.,*98 NY2d 144, 151-152 [2002]), his claim that the defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty and/or negligence was a proximate cause of the dissolution of his marriage remains entirely speculative and finds no support in the record *(see Turk v Angel,*293 AD2d 284 [2002]; *Sherwood Group v Dornbush, Mensch, Mandelstam & Silverman,*191 AD2d 292, 294 [1993]; *Weissman v Mertz,*128 AD2d 609, 610 [1987]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Schmidt, J.P., Cozier, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 125 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 125

To repeal the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and the ban on large 
                  capacity ammunition feeding devices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Chapman (for himself, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Boucher, Mr. 
 Brewster, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Pete Geren of Texas, Mr. Gordon, 
Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Holden, Mr. Klink, Mr. 
 Laughlin, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Solomon, Mr. 
  Talent, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Volkmer, Mr. Wise, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. 
Mollohan, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Costello, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Stump, 
Mr. Emerson, Mr. Baker of Louisiana, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Sam 
     Johnson of Texas, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. 
  Hostettler, Mr. McCollum, and Mr. Rahall) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and the ban on large 
                  capacity ammunition feeding devices.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Gun Ban Repeal Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE BAN ON SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS AND THE BAN 
              ON LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

    (a) In General.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by striking subsections (v) and (w) and by striking the 
appendix.
    (b) Conforming Amendments and Repeal.--
            (1) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking 
        paragraph (31).
            (2) Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by 
        striking ``(r), (v),''.
            (3) Section 923(i) of such title is amended by striking the 
        last 2 sentences.
            (4) Section 110104 of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
        Enforcement Act of 1994 is hereby repealed.
                                 <all>
```
## -c7lP'7- ;VQ°r -00"3

, yu 5 ~ w o Q z'1~ 47 PROSS - G UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 &'v p. 1

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

# ~((-7-/o-~- MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Request for Reviewof the Physical-Chemical Endpoints for HPV Orphan

Chemical Biuret (CASRN 108-19-0) , _ FROM : Tracy Williamson, Chief Industrial Chemistry Branch (7406M) TO : Greg Schweer, Chief

Chemical Information and Testing Branch (7405M) t

This memo is in response to your request to evaluate the adequacy of data submitted by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) to meet the physical-chemical property endpoints for Biuret (C.'ASRN 108-19-0) . The following comments are made with regards to the physical-chemical properties of Biuret : " Melting Point . The submitted value is 188-190deg C (experimental) . Similar experimental values were found in other sources. This value is adequate. " Boiling Point . The submitted value is 193 °C at 1013.25 hPa (experimental) . This js~a decomposition temperature and should be noted as such. " Vapor Pressure. The submitted value is 1 .02E-5 mm Hg (calculated) . The estimated vapor pressure is higher than the cut off value of 7.5e-8 torr in EPA's guidance for -.~. estimating vapor pressure values (EPA's guidance is based on OECD guidance) . Because the boiling point cannot be measured due to decomposition but would otherwise be estimated to be high, the calculated vapor pressure is adequate and does not neehi~ be tested . " Water Solubility. The submitted value is 8.777Ei-4 mg/L (experimental) . Similar experimental values were found in other sources. This value is adequate. " LogP

. The submitted value is -1 .3988 (calculated) . The HPVprogramaccepts estimated values for log P. This value is adequate. I agree with the sponsor's reasoning for no further testing for the physical-chemical endpoints of this chemical . 

## CONTAINS NOCB1 3,7 ~ ~ 0'0 1 Appendix 1 in OECD Guidelinefor the Testing ofChenticals, Guideline 104 : Vapour Pressure ~~EO STq~

.

Internet Address Recycled/Recyclable 9 (URL) " httpalwww .epa.gov Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer . Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00316-CV

JOY NALL APPELLANT

V.

CLOVER HILL APARTMENTS APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On September 10, 2010, and September 27, 2010, we notified appellant, 

in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this 

appeal unless the $175 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). On 

October 27, 2010, we called the phone number that appellant listed on her notice 

of appeal, but the phone number is no longer in service. We also contacted the 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

trial court clerk and verified that the trial court has the same address as our court 

and that there is not a forwarding address for appellant.

Appellant has not paid the $175 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b). 

Because appellant has failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2007,2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 4, 2010

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil 

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial 

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Aug. 28, 2007) (listing 

fees in courts of appeals).
Exhibit 10.7


OPTIUM CORPORATION


Employee
Notice of Grant of Non-Qualified Stock Option


Anthony
Musto  (the “Optionee”)
has been granted an option (the “Option”) to
purchase certain shares of Optium Corporation  common
stock (the “Stock”) pursuant to the
Optium Corporation 2006 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”), as follows:


	
  Grant Date:

  	
  March 3, 2007

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Number
  of Option Shares:

  	
  24,000

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Option
  Exercise Price per Share:

  	
  $20.85

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Expiration
  Date:

  	
  February 28, 2017

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Tax
  Status of Option:

  	
  Non-Qualified

  



 


Vested Shares:  Except as provided in Stock Option Agreement,
and provided that the Optionee’s employment by the Company or any of its
subsidiaries has not terminated prior to any applicable vesting date, the
shares will vest 25% on March 1, 2008 and 2.08% monthly thereafter with the
final vesting occurring on March 1, 2011. 
Fractional shares are not exercisable until fractional shares equal a
whole share. In addition, there shall be acceleration of vesting of 25% of
original grant (or 100% of remaining unvested portion is less) following
termination without Cause or Constructive Termination (each term as defined in
Optionee’s Employment Agreement with the Company) within one year of an Acquisition
(as defined in the Plan).


By their signatures
below, the Company and the Optionee agree that the Option is governed by this
Notice and by the provisions of the Plan and the Non-Qualified Stock Option
Option Agreement, both of which are attached to and made a part of this
document.  The Optionee acknowledges
receipt of a copy of the Plan and the Option Agreement, represents that the
Optionee has read and is familiar with their provisions, and hereby accepts the
Option subject to all of their terms and conditions.  In the event that there is a conflict between
the Option Agreement and this Notice, the terms of Option Agreement shall
govern.  This Notice may be executed in
two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which shall constitute one and the same document.


	
  OPTIUM CORPORATION

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Eitan Gertel

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Anthony Musto

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
  Eitan Gertel

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Anthony Musto

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
  CEO, President & Chairman

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Address:

  	
  200 Precision Road

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Horsham, PA 19044

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


ATTACHMENTS:                                             Optium
Corporation 2006 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, as amended through the Grant
Date, the Option Agreement, Plan Information Statement and IPO Final Prospectus
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 124 ) M-K-(B)-11 4 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:52 AM Sheet 124 of 325II-K-(B)-11 4 P. 2

REGIONAL ANNUALIZE D INDUSTRIAL FUE L PRICE S Lette r fro

m T . Hogan , EE

A t o R . Short , EPA:EAB Jun e 9 , 198 3 THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-11 0
Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H : ^ npF^-^ 'r''" 

2816 Orefield Road " ' "' " JAN 2 8 231t 

Allentown, PA. 18104 :-f F>5 ... p ,, 3qHEAR,ls| G DOCKE T 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

'"''Com'^a?nints°''^'' ^""'''^ ' Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

V. Docket: 2010-1211 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR MORE 

DEFINITE STATEMENT 

ORDER AND SETTLEMENT 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, principle 

for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) whom avers and 

files the following Reply to the Complainants Response to the Motion for more 

definite statement in reply to complainants filing received January 10, 2011, 

Complainants Response to Order of Chief Administrative Law Judge Establishing 

Procedures. 

1. To date respondent has not yet been served with an order from the 
Administrative Judge concerning a definite procedural schedule. 

2. In complainants above pleading, respondent disagreed with 

complainants statement that complainant has made reasonable efforts for 

settlement and to resolve this case at the informal stage. At the informal stage, 

the cause of action cited by complainants, was on incorrect alleged claims that 

innocent bystander Mr Baker, was on NO monitoring program while performing 

safety sensitive functions on MRH aircraft in 2008. 

3. In the steadfast, unyielding position, complainants have refused to 

address this flawed fundamental fact and shifted the primary cause of action of 

their complaint from Mr Baker not being on any Monitoring program (confirmed 

that he was), to Mr Baker not being on MRHs own employers in existent 

monitoring program, despite under Judicial Estoppels and with Legal 

inconsistency, complainants had already released the Mechanic/IA who was 

also found to be on a monitoring program by his full time employer. See Motion 

for Judgment to Dismiss-Judioal Estoppels. Leaal Inconsistency. 

4. Therefore, quite to the contrary, complainants have been 

unreasonable and egregiously changed their complaint basis to pursue a 

violation by whatever means needed to warrant their frivolous violation in a 

moving target of changing and inconsistent color of law arguments. 

5. Complainant's have made no additional confirmation or additions to 

the above statements. 
WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will: 

1. Have complainants confirm that they agree that Mr Baker was on a 

Drug/Alcohol program during the dates cited in the complaint /or 

3. To dismiss this case in the effort of judicial economy. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date 

3-
#### Marie Szetela *vs.*Vincent Abramowicz.

Maltbie, C. J., Haines, Hinman, Banks and Avert, Js.

Argued April 6th

decided May 1st, 1934.

*M. Joseph Blumenfeld,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Edward S. Pomeranz,*with whom, on the brief, was *George Miske,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Cyril F. Gaffney,*for the plaintiffs in two companion cases.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages from the driver of a car in which she was riding as a guest for injuries suffered when it collided with a truck. The plaintiff, the defendant and two others were returning from a social gathering held at an inn two or three miles south of Wallingford, and the accident occurred a short distance north of that village. The car was a four cylinder Ford sedan. The plaintiff was seated in the front seat. The car and the truck were proceeding in the same direction. The accident occurred about one a. m. The night was clear, the road straight and dry, and there was no other traffic on it at the time. The jury might reasonably have found the immediate circumstances of the collision to be as follows: The defendant saw the truck when he was some two hundred feet away, proceeding upon its right-hand side of the road; he was driving *698at the rate of fifty to sixty miles an hour; he determined to pass it and increased his speed somewhat; as he came near the rear of the truck, the car he was driving seemed to swerve, he turned his head, and lost-control of it and it struck the left rear corner of the truck, from behind. The jury might also reasonably have found that when the party left the inn the defendant shot across the road in front of an approaching car, in imminent danger of a collision with it; that except for a short distance immediately thereafter, he drove at all times at the rate of fifty to sixty miles an hour; that he passed through the village of Walling-ford without slackening his speed; that the plaintiff and another passenger in the car on two or three occasions remonstrated with him as to the way in which he was driving, but he gave no heed to them; that the plaintiff, on seeing, the truck ahead of him, called the defendant’s attention to it and he said that it was “hogging the road;” and when the plaintiff besought him to “take it easy,” he replied that he knew what he was doing. The trial court refused to set the verdict aside and we cannot say that it erred in that ruling. It might well have concluded that the jury could reasonably find the defendant guilty of misconduct proximately causing the accident, which was characterized by a reckless disregard of the rights of the passengers in the car, within the meaning of the “guest statute.” General Statutes, § 1628; *Schepp*v. *Trotter,*115 Conn. 183, 160 Atl. 869; *Coner v. Chittenden,*116 Conn. 78, 163 Atl. 472.

Reading the charge as a whole, it is not possible to believe that the jury could have been misled as to the requirements of proof resting upon the plaintiff under the statute, by the references to “due care” and “negligence,” of which complaint is made.

There is no error.
Exhibit 32.1




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Protein Polymer  Technologies,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ William N. Plamondon, III
-----------------------------
William N. Plamondon, III
Chief Executive Officer
August 21, 2006



In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Protein Polymer  Technologies,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Janis Y. Neves
------------------
Janis Y. Neves
Director of Finance and Corporate Secretary
August 21, 2006