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

[632 NYS2d 1003]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that County Court erred in failing to dismiss the charge of tampering with physical evidence (see, Penal Law § 215.40 [2]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, ev*866idence of an actual or prospective official proceeding was not necessary because such an official proceeding " 'could readily [have been] contemplated’ ” under the circumstances *(People v DeRue,*179 AD2d 1027,1029). Additionally, there is no requirement that an official proceeding have commenced by the time of trial *(see,*Penal Law § 215.40). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the conviction of tampering with physical evidence is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). Finally, the prosecutor’s comments on summation did not mischaracterize the proof and in any event were fair response to defense counsel’s summation *(see, People v Kyler,*191 AD2d 1029, lv denied 81 NY2d 1015; *People v Price,*144 AD2d 1013, *lv denied 73*NY2d 895). (Appeal from Judgment of Jefferson County Court, Clary, J. — Tampering with Physical Evidence.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2010 to 12/31/2010Page 1 of 203/16/2015 18:31:56

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Sequoyah 2 Docket (050- 00328)

Communication / IR160 - No communication / information not communicated P - Procedure Writers P - Procedure Dev 

160 - No communication / information not communicated P - Procedure Writers P - Procedure Dev 

210

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Procedures & Reference Document / IR111 - Procedure / reference document technical content H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 

111 - Procedure / reference document technical content M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 111 - Procedure / reference document technical content M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 111 - Procedure / reference document technical content P - Procedure Writers P - Procedure Dev 113 - Procedure / reference document development and maintenance LT P - Procedure Writers P - Procedure Dev 

524

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Problem Identification & Resolution / IR142 - Operating experience (OE) review LTA G - Engineering M - Maintenance / Repair 

143 - Tracking / trending LTA O - Operations S - Surveillance 143 - Tracking / trending LTA M - Mechanical S - Surveillance 146 - Evaluation LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 146 - Evaluation LTA P - Procedure Writers P - Procedure Dev 

524

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR182 - Work package quality LTA G - Engineering M - Maintenance / Repair 

183 - Pre-job activities LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 185 - Procedural adherence LTA Z - Other / Unknown R - Refueling 185 - Procedural adherence LTA P - Procedure Writers P - Procedure Dev 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements P - Procedure Writers P - Procedure Dev 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 188 - Work practice or craft skill LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2010 to 12/31/2010Page 2 of 203/16/2015 18:31:56

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: Sequoyah 2 Docket (050- 00328)

Work Planning & Practices / IR188 - Work practice or craft skill LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 

943

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 21
|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); 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:                  March 28, 2008 | By:                            | /s/                  Marius Silvasan |
|                                  | Marius                  Silvasan         |
|                                  | Chief                  Executive Officer |

----
Form of Amendment to Stock Option Notice and Stock Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO STOCK OPTION GRANT NOTICE AND STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT 

TransDigm Group Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to its 2006 Stock Incentive Plan
(the “Plan”), granted to the holder listed below (“Participant”), an option to purchase the number of shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 (“Stock”), on
the date set forth below (the “Option”) pursuant to a Stock Option Grant Notice and Stock Option Agreement (the “Stock Option Agreement”). Capitalized terms used herein have the meanings ascribed to
them in the Stock Option Agreement. 
  

			
	Participant:	  	  

		
	Grant Date:	  	  

		
	Total Number of Shares Subject to the Option:	  	 shares



Participant and the Company hereby amend the Stock Option Agreement as follows: 

Exhibit C of the Stock Option Agreement is deleted and replaced in its entirety as follows: 

EXHIBIT C 

STOCK RETENTION GUIDELINES 
 As a condition to receiving the Option grant, Participant acknowledges and agrees to hold a number of shares and/or options with such value and for such period of time as set forth below: 

(a) At all times during Participant’s continued employment by the Company, Participant shall hold an aggregate amount of Company
equity with a value equal to or greater than $             (the “Retention Limit”). This Retention Limit will supersede any Retention Limit in any prior dated
option agreement between the Company and Participant pursuant to the Plan. 
 For purposes of this Exhibit C, Company
equity shall be equal to (i) the Fair Market Value of any Common Stock held by the Participant plus (ii) the value of vested options then held by Participant, whether granted pursuant to the Plan, the Company’s 2003 Stock Option Plan
or otherwise, which will be equal to the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock underlying the options over the exercise price.  
 (b) If at any time after the date hereof the aggregate amount of Company equity held by Participant falls below the Retention Limit because of a decline in the Fair Market Value of the Common Stock,
Participant will have three years to reach the Retention Limit before the Administrator may exercise any remedies under paragraph (c). 
 (c) Participant’s failure to hold that number of shares and/or vested options set forth in this Exhibit C shall result in Participant’s forfeiture of all unvested Options unless otherwise
determined by the Administrator, in its sole discretion. 







 By his or her signature, Participant and the Company agree to be bound by the terms and
conditions of the Stock Option Agreement, as amended hereby. 
  

									
	TRANSDIGM GROUP INCORPORATED	 		 	PARTICIPANT
					
	By:	 	  
	 		 	By:	 	  

	Print Name:	 	  
	 		 	Print Name:	 	  

	Title:	 	  
	 		 		 	
	Address:	 	  
	 		 	Address:
#### Malleable Iron Range Company, Appellant, vs. Industrial Commission and another, Respondents.

*May 10*

June *5, 1934.*

*562*Citarles II. Gorman*of Milwaukee, for the appellant.

For the respondent Industrial Commission there was a brief by the *Attorney General*and *Mortimer*Levitan, assistant attorney general, and oral argument by *Mr. Levitan.*

Fairchild, J.

The employee was afflicted with arteriosclerosis in an advanced degree. This, of course, rendered him liable to just such a result as did occur. There is testimony describing the load which Grant was drawing, and characterizing the work of drawing such a load up that particular grade as hard work. To a man in the condition Grant was in, the risk of serious illness or death was increased by unusual exertion. Medical testimony was given to the effect that increased exertion, increased the hazard of a rupture.

The evidence leaves no room for doubt that the artery was extremely brittle and the rupture produced with less pressure or exertion than would have been required to cause it in a person of normal condition. This fact, however, does not prevent the rupture from being the result of Grant’s work. See 60 A. L. R. 1299, and cases cited on page 1304 and following. It is true that compensation was not intended to take the place of life insurance, but a showing of a fortuitous circumstance happening in the prosecution of one’s work and having an open and direct relation to the industry causing injury, brings the case within the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The commission found a definite mishap to an employee, happening to him while performing services growing out of and incidental to his employment. He was at the *563time engaged in moving a heavy load up an incline, and while under the strain involved in the task of going up the short incline, the rupture in the artery happened.

The word “accident,” as used in workmen’s compensation cases, includes ruptures resulting from lifting heavy objects. *Vennen v. New Dells Lumber Co.*161 Wis. 370, 154 N. W. 640. In *Bystrom Bros. v.*Jacobson, 162 Wis. 180, 155 N. W. 919, this court quoted approvingly from *Fenton v. Thorley & Co.*89 L. T. Rep. 314, as follows:

> “If a man, in lifting a weight or trying to move something not easily moved, were to strain a muscle, or rick his back, or rupture himself, the mishap in ordinary parlance would be described, as accidental.”

The very serious condition of Grant, warranting a belief that his death was likely to follow almost any exertion, makes this a doubtful case, but we agree with the learned judge who tried the matter below that it cannot be said that there is no credible evidence to sustain the finding.of the. commission that the rupture was caused by the pulling of a heavily-loaded truck up a short incline, and that this exertion was the cause of the rupture and the subsequent death. *Milwaukee E. R. & L. Co. v. Industrial Comm.*212 Wis. 227, 247 N. W. 841; *Bystrom Bros. v. Jacobson, supra;*60 A. L. R. *1299.*

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7047

JAMES HARDIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Columbia. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (3:08-cv-02334-PMD)

Submitted: February 28, 2011 Decided: March 8, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Hardin, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant 

Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Hardin seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, 

and its subsequent order denying his motion to vacate judgment 

and for leave to file objections. The district court referred 

this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The magistrate judge 

recommended that relief be denied and advised Hardin that 

failure to file timely, specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Hardin

has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after 

receiving proper notice and receiving an extension of time to 

file objections. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Servicing Agreement dated as of May 30, 2019 (the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between Capital One Prime Auto Receivables Trust 2019-1, as Issuer, the Servicer and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision. |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreements in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| By:    | /s/ SANJIV YAJNIK |
|   |   |
| Name:  | Sanjiv Yajnik |
| Title: | President |
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Environmental Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1555)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 22, 2023
#### Gathright v. Marshall, Executor of Rind.

Wednesday, October 14, 1807.

Attorney and Client — Money Collected on Judgment-Simple Contract-Debt,* — A debt due from an attorney to his client, for money collected on a judgment, is only a debt by simple contract.

The only question in this case was, whether in the course of administering the assets of the decedent, who was a lawyer, a debt due from him to his client, for money collected upon a judgment, but of which collection no written *acknowledgment appeared, was to be considered as standing on the footing of an open account only, or as being of equal dignity with a judgment or specialty.

The District Court of Richmond decided the debt to be of the same dignity with other open accounts, and gave a judgment in favour of Gathright, payable when assets should come into the hands of the defendant to be administered; from which judgment Gathright appealed.

Nicholas, for the appellant, observed, that the principles which regulate the order of payment of a decedent’s debts are derived from the common law; that certain debts though not secured by writings were preferred to specialties on account of peculiar reasons and circumstances; funeral expenses, for example; that, according to the reason of the case, no debt can stand on a higher footing than that of an attorney to his client; that in this case, the claim was founded on a judgment; the records were to be resorted to for its establishment, and the act of Assembly gave a summary recovery by motion, (c)

In the case of Eppes and others v. Randolph(d) certain simple contract creditors were, for special reasons, put on the footing of bond creditors.

JUDGE LYONS.

Was not that in a Court of Equity?

Nicholas. The same rule as to dignity of debts applies in both Courts. — The peculiar remedy by motion by virtue of the act of Assembly furnishes another reason for considering this claim as superior to an ordinary simple contract. The doctrine is laid down in 4 Bac. Abr. (Gwyllim’s ed.) 471, 472, that, where a particular remedy is given by statute, it is considered as proceeding on a record, because the statute is a record of the highest dignity. In certain cases to the Court regards a simple contract debt as due by record, in order to take it out of the act of limitations. They may, therefore, by parity of reasoning, regard it as such, in order to affect its dignity in the order of payment, where it would be equitable to do so.

Randolph, for the appellee, thought the point too plain against the appellant to require an argument.

Thursday, October IS. The judgment of the District Court was unanimously affirmed; all the Judges being present.

(c)

2 Call, 188.

(b)

 Rev. Code, 1 vol., p. 97, c. 71, s. 7.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Annual Report of Pacifica Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Kennedy, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 3. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 4. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the period certified.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certification is being furnished solely to comply with the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any of the Companys filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part of the
Report or under such Acts.



|                     |  |                                          
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Date: March 17, 2005 |  | /s/ John D. Huddleston                   
|                     |  | John D. Huddleston                       
|                     |  | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial
|                     |  | Officer, and Chief Operating Officer
**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 Annual Report of Morris Business Development Company (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, George Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      Section 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)  Information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      July 14, 2008




*/s/
                George Morris*George
                MorrisChief
                Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Morris Business Development Company and will be retained by Morris Business
      Development Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.


Exhibit
      32.1


Page
      1 of
      1 Page