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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), rendered September 9, 1988, convicting him of arson in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

We have considered and rejected most of the contentions raised by the defendant upon the appeal by his codefendant Phillip Amato, with whom this defendant was jointly tried *(see, People v Amato,*173 AD2d 714 [decided herewith]). The defendant has not raised any arguments requiring a different result.

In addition, we note that we agree with the defendant that the court erred in precluding him from questioning Fire Marshal John Carney regarding a prior inconsistent statement made to him by Joseph Minchella, which, at trial, Minchella denied making *(see,*Richardson, Evidence, §§ 501, 502 [Prince 10th ed]). However, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt adduced at the trial, the error was harmless *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Bracken, J. P., Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
Slip Op. 20-82 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

Before: Leo M. Gordon, Judge 

Consol. Court No. 15-00103 

JUDGMENT

This action having been submitted for decision, and the court, after due deliberation, 

having rendered opinions; now in conformity with those opinions, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, 

ECF No. 95-1 (Second Remand Results), regarding the final results of the fifth 

administrative review of the antidumping duty order covering steel wire garment hangers 

from the People’s Republic of China, Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the PRC, 

80 Fed. Reg. 13,332 (Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 13, 2015) (final results admin. rev.) and 

the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum for Steel Wire Garments from the 

PRC, A–570–918, (Dep’t of Commerce Mar. 6, 2015), available at 

https://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/summary/prc/2015-05828-1.pdf (last visited this date), 

are sustained; and it is further 

SHANGHAI WELLS HANGER CO., LTD., 

HONG KONG WELLS LTD., 

HONG KONG WELLS LTD. (USA), 

FABRICLEAN SUPPLY, INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant. 
Consol. Court No. 15-00103 Page 2 

ORDERED that the subject entries enjoined in this action, see ECF No. 12 (order 

granting motion for preliminary injunction), must be liquidated in accordance with the final 

court decision, as provided in Section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 

19 U.S.C. § 1516a(e) (2012). 

 /s/ Leo M. Gordon 

 Judge Leo M. Gordon 

Dated: June 11, 2020 

 New York, New York
**EXHIBIT 32.2** **US    BioEnergy Corporation** **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 US BioEnergy    Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the    quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the    Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the    “Report”), I, Richard K. Atkinson, Senior Vice    President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby    certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted    pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,    that, to the best of my knowledge:      (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 results of    operations of the Company.  Date:    August 10, 2007          /s/  Richard    K. Atkinson    Richard K. Atkinson    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    (Principal Financial Officer)
exv10w31



 





Exhibit 10.31




AMENDMENT NO. 1

TO THE

TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC. 1997 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN



Pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. 1997 Equity Incentive Plan
(the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended (this “Amendment”) as follows:



A new Section 8 of the Plan shall be created to provide for the following:





	 	8.	 	NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK AWARDS






     The Board may grant Stock Awards to Non-Employee Directors, subject to
the limitations of the Plan, pursuant to a written non-discretionary formula
established by the Board or the Committee, or any successor committee
thereto carrying out its responsibilities on the date of grant of any such
Stock Award (the “Non-Employee Director Equity Compensation
Policy”). The Non-Employee Director Equity Compensation Policy shall
set forth the type of Stock Award(s) to be granted to Non-Employee
Directors, the number of shares of the Company’s Common Stock to be subject
to Non-Employee Director Stock Awards, the conditions on which such Stock
Awards shall be granted, become exercisable and/or payable and expire, and
such other terms and conditions as the Committee (or such other successor
committee as described above) shall establish.


The section of the Plan identified as Section 8 of the Plan prior to giving effect
to this Amendment (the “Former Section 8”) shall be amended to reflect a
new section number and all other sections of the Plan making reference to the
Former Section 8 shall be revised accordingly to give effect to this Amendment.



This Amendment to the Plan shall be effective as of Wednesday, May 3, 2006



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. has executed this Amendment to the Plan
this 3rd day of May, 2006.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	TERAYON COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By: 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
#### Willis C. GABBARD, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. David A. BEACH, Bureau Chief, Driver License Services, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 860308-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

May 7, 1987.

Loni F. DeLand, McRae & DeLand, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Bruce Hale, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant and respondent.

Before GARFF, GREENWOOD and BENCH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

BENCH, Judge:

Plaintiff Gabbard appeals the ninety day suspension of his driver’s license and requests this Court to order defendant to reinstate his driving privileges.

Plaintiff was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44 (1983). After a hearing before an examiner, defendant ordered the suspension of plaintiffs license for ninety days effective March 24, 1985, pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 41-2-19.6 (1983). On April 8, 1985, plaintiff filed a petition for a hearing before the Third District Court. Plaintiff also, on April 26, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The court granted plaintiff’s motion prohibiting the suspension until a hearing scheduled for May 21, 1985. After reviewing the transcript of the departmental hearing and all pertinent documents, the court, on July 1, 1985, sustained the decision of the hearing examiner and ordered plaintiff’s driving privileges suspended accordingly.

On appeal, plaintiff requests only that the suspension be revoked and his driving privileges reinstated. The Utah Supreme Court has held “a case is moot where the requested judicial relief cannot affect the rights of the litigants.” *Jones v. Schwendiman, 721*P.2d 893, 894 (Utah 1986). The record on appeal was filed on June 18, 1986. No district court order of stay of judgment pending appeal appears in the record, nor has any such order been requested of this court. *See*R. Utah Ct.App. 8. The ninety day suspension of plaintiff’s license expired, at the latest, ninety days after the order of the trial court, or October 1, 1985. “Because the order of [suspension] has now expired by its own terms, we refrain from adjudicating the merits of the issues raised.” *Jones,*721 P.2d at 894.

On grounds of mootness, the appeal is dismissed.

GARFF and GREENWOOD, JJ., concur.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1860 

To permit each current member of the Board of Directors of the Office 

of Compliance to serve for 3 terms. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

Mr. LIEBERMAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To permit each current member of the Board of Directors 

of the Office of Compliance to serve for 3 terms. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TERM FOR MEMBERS OF BOARD 

4 OF DIRECTORS OF OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE. 

5 Notwithstanding the second sentence of section 

6 301(e)(1) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 

7 (2 U.S.C. 1381(e)(1)), any individual serving as a member 

8 of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance as 

9 of September 30, 2009, may serve for 3 terms. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 US BioEnergy Corporation
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of US BioEnergy Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and(c)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and(b)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 /s/    Richard K. AtkinsonRichard K. AtkinsonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ATLANTIC WIND, LLC

v.

ZONING HEARING BOARD OF PENN

FOREST TOWNSHIP

PETITION OF: FORTY-TWO INTERVENORS :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 159 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ATLANTIC WIND, LLC

v.

PENN FOREST TOWNSHIP ZONING

HEARING BOARD

PETITION OF: FORTY-TWO INTERVENORS :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 160 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

BETHLEHEM AUTHORITY

v.

PENN FOREST TOWNSHIP ZONING

HEARING BOARD

PETITION OF: FORTY-TWO INTERVENORS :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 161 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court[ 159 MAL 2022, 160 MAL 2022, 161 MAL 2022 and 162 MAL 2022 ]

- 2

BETHLEHEM AUTHORITY,

v.

THE ZONING HEARING BOARD OF

PENN FOREST TOWNSHIP

PETITION OF: FORTY-TWO INTERVENORS :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 162 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of September, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
# L_2007239EN.01007001.xml

| 12.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 239/70 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 239/70

---

Corrigendum to Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 328 of 24 November 2006
  )

On page 32, Article 49(3):

for:

‘3.   The specific requirements for surveillance, buffer zones, sampling and diagnostic methods that shall be used by Member States to grant disease-free status in accordance with this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 62(2).’,

read:

‘3.   The specific requirements for surveillance, buffer zones, sampling and diagnostic methods that shall be used by Member States to declare disease-free status in accordance with this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 62(2).’

---
#### Paul STAAEL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Alaska, Respondent.

No. S-964.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

May 2, 1986.

Carol Greenberg, Asst. Public Defender, Fairbanks, Dana Fabe, Public Defender, Anchorage, for petitioner.

Robert D. Bacon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anchorage, Harold M. Brown, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for respondent.

Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., and BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON and MOORE, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Two issues are presented in this petition. They are: (1) whether a trial court may give over a defendant’s objection an instruction that jurors must unanimously find the defendant not guilty of a greater offense before they may render a verdict on whether he is guilty of any lesser included offense, and (2) whether double jeopardy bars reprosecution for a charged offense where the jury indicates that it is unable to reach a verdict as to that offense and the court declares a mistrial over defense objection rather than permitting the jury to deliberate as to a lesser included offense.

As to the second issue, we dismiss the petition for hearing as improvidently granted. As to the first issue, we affirm the court of appeals for the reasons stated by the court of appeals in *Dresnek v. State,*697 P.2d 1059 (Alaska App.1985) and in *Staael v. State,*697 P.2d 1050 (Alaska App.1985).

RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice,

with whom BURKE, Justice, joins, concurring.

I concur in the result and in the decision to dismiss the petition, in part, as improvidently granted. *See Dresnek v. State,*718 P.2d 156 n. 2 (Alaska, 1986) (Rabinowitz, C.J., joined by Burke, J., dissenting).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24


                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

         Each director and/or officer of CheckFree Corporation (the
"Corporation") whose signature appears below hereby appoints Peter J. Kight,
Mark A. Johnson, and Curtis A. Loveland as the undersigned's attorneys or any
of them individually as the undersigned's attorney, to sign, in the
undersigned's name and behalf and in any and all capacities stated below, and
to cause to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Commission"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K")
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1997, and likewise to sign and file with the
Commission any and all amendments to the Form 10-K, and the Corporation hereby
also appoints such persons as its attorneys-in-fact and each of them as its
attorney-in-fact with like authority to sign and file the Form 10-K and any
amendments thereto granting to each such attorney-in-fact full power of
substitution and revocation, and hereby ratifying all that any such
attorney-in-fact or the undersigned's substitute may do by virtue hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this 8th day of
August, 1997.


Signature                                   Title


/s/ Peter J. Kight                          Chairman of the Board of Directors,
----------------------------                President, and Chief
    Peter J. Kight                          Executive Officer


/s/ Mark A. Johnson                         Vice Chairman,
-----------------------------               Corporate Development and
    Mark A. Johnson                         Marketing, Director


/s/ James S. Douglass                       Executive Vice President and
-----------------------------               Chief Financial Officer
    James S. Douglass


/s/ Gary A. Luoma, Jr.                      Vice President,
-----------------------------               Chief Accounting Officer and
    Gary A. Luoma, Jr.                      Assistant Secretary


/s/ William P. Boardman                     Director
-----------------------------
    William P. Boardman


/s/ George R. Manser                        Director
-----------------------------
     George R. Manser


/s/ Eugene F. Quinn                         Director
-----------------------------
     Eugene F. Quinn


/s/ Jeffrey M. Wilkins                      Director
-----------------------------
     Jeffrey M. Wilkins
<PAGE>


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2
              TO AMENDED AND RESTATED 1976 COAL PURCHASE CONTRACT
                                    BETWEEN
           COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY AND BLACK BUTTE COAL COMPANY

This Amendment No. 2 ("Amendment") shall be effective as of January 1, 1997 and
is made and entered into by and between Commonwealth Edison Company ("Edison")
and Black Butte Coal Company ("Black Butte").

WHEREAS, Edison and Black Butte entered into a contract entitled "Amended and
Restated 1976 Coal Purchase Contract between Commonwealth Edison Company and
Black Butte Coal Company" dated January 1, 1993 (such agreement as heretofore
amended being referred to herein as the "Agreement") and

WHEREAS, Edison and Black Butte desire to amend the Agreement in certain
respects as provided herein.

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as
follows:

     Section 2.01 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

     Section 2.01. In each of the years 1993 through and including 2000.
Buyer shall purchase and take delivery from Seller and Seller shall sell and
deliver to Buyer quantities of coal in the years indicated below ("Base I
Coal"):

     -----------------------------------------
                     Base I Coal

                       (Tons)
     -----------------------------------------
        1993                   4,049,065
        1994                   3,740,742
        1995                   3,969,907
        1996                   4,652,726


                                      1

                             CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT

 
<PAGE>


If Buyer purchases more coal in the period 1993 through 2000 than the aggregate
amount it is required to purchase in that period, the excess shall be deemed to
be Base II Coal." 


    2. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the provisions of the Agreement 
shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective as of the
date first written above.

BLACK BUTTE COAL COMPANY

By: /s/
   --------------------------------
Member Management Committee

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

By: /s/
------------------------------------
     Vice President


                                        2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-30386

_____________________

SCHWEGMANN WESTSIDE EXPRESSWAY INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

versus

K-MART CORPORATION, ET AL.,

Defendants,

GULF LIFE INS. CO.,

Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-2095)

_________________________________________________________________

March 27, 1997

Before REAVLEY, KING, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

When Schwegmann Westside Expressway, Inc., entered into an

agreement in 1993 to purchase a mall, “as is”, from Gulf Life

Insurance Company, and to assume a lease between K-Mart Corporation

and Gulf Life (the leased premises had been vacant since 1987;

approximately six months remained on the lease term), Schwegmann
- 2 -

was aware that a roof leak had caused damages to the premises

leased by K-Mart; and Schwegmann had a copy of the lease between

Gulf Life and K-Mart, which provided that Gulf Life was responsible

for the roof and for keeping the premises “safe, dry and

tenantable”, and that K-Mart was to surrender the premises in good

condition except for, inter alia, repairs to be made by Gulf Life.

Pursuant to the purchase and sale agreement, Gulf Life

furnished Schwegmann with a landlord estoppel letter, representing

that it had no knowledge of any default under the K-Mart lease;

but, that representation was based solely upon the lease, which was

attached, and “the notices, if any”, received by Gulf Life from KMart while Gulf Life was the owner of the property. K-Mart never

gave Gulf Life any notice of default prior to the sale. Because,

inter alia, there was no justifiable reliance by Schwegmann on the

landlord estoppel letter, it cannot prevail on its negligent

misrepresentation claim against Gulf Life.

The purchase and sale agreement provides for attorney’s fees

being awarded to the prevailing party in an action to enforce or

interpret that agreement, or for indemnity. Because Schwegmann’s

was not such an action and because Gulf Life’s reliance on the

indemnity provision in the agreement is misplaced (there is no

evidence that Schwegmann breached any of the representations or

warranties referred to in that provision), Gulf Life’s attorney’s

fees claim fails.
- 3 -

AFFIRMED