alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Abraham Weinberg, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[770 NYS2d 431]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme *490Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated January 28, 2003, which granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendant City of New York, the defendants Michael Kuryland and Yana Kuryland, and the defendant Sea Gate Association which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

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

On January 30, 1994, the plaintiff’s decedent fell on a sidewalk abutting property owned by the defendants Michael Kuryland and Yana Kuryland. The Kurylands’ residence was part of a private community, and the Kurylands belonged to Sea Gate Association (hereinafter the Association), a homeowner’s association, which owned the sidewalk. On August 18, 1994, the plaintiffs decedent testified at a hearing conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h. After her death, her husband, as executor of her estate, commenced this action against the Kurylands, the Association, and the City of New York. The plaintiff testified at his examination before trial, conducted on June 14, 1999, that he did not actually see the decedent fall and that he did not know what caused the decedent to fall.

The Kurylands and the Association established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of the decedent’s accident *(see Burnstein v Mandalay Caterers,*306 AD2d 428 [2003]; *White v Walsh,*289 AD2d 228 [2001]; *Gianchetta v E.B. Mar.,*258 AD2d 618 [1999]; *Capraro v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp.,*245 AD2d 256 [1997]; *see also Bernstein v City of New York,*69 NY2d 1020 [1987]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The testimony given by the plaintiffs decedent at the hearing conducted pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h cannot be used as against the defendants Michael Kuryland, Yana Kuryland, and the Association, since they were not notified about the hearing and were not present for the testimony given by the decedent *(see*CPLR 3117 [a] [3]; *Claypool v City of New York,*267 AD2d 33 [1999]).

The City also established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it did not own, control, occupy, or make special use of the subject private sidewalk on which the decedent fell *(see Cuce v Bell Atl. Corp.,*299 AD2d 387 [2002]; *Rosenbloom v City of New York,*254 AD2d 474 [1998]). Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.16.1


AMENDMENT TO 
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION 
2015 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
                The Duke Energy Corporation 2015 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended, effective as of December 13, 2018, as follows:
		
	1.
	Section 14.2 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


“14.2    Minimum Vesting Period.  All Awards, and tranches or portions thereof, granted under the Plan on and after December 13, 2018 (the “Amendment Date”) shall be subject to a minimum vesting period of one year measured from the Date of Grant; provided, however, that up to 5% of the total number of shares of Common Stock remaining available for issuance under the Plan under Section 3.1 as of the Amendment Date (subject to adjustment thereafter under Section 3.3) may be granted without regard to this minimum vesting period.  Nothing contained in this Section 14.2 shall limit the Committee’s authority to provide for accelerated vesting in the event of an earlier Change in Control or termination of service and, for the avoidance of doubt, any shares of Common Stock issued as a result of such accelerated vesting shall not count against the 5% limit described above.  Notwithstanding anything in the Plan to the contrary, Awards granted in connection with a merger, acquisition or similar transaction in substitution for stock awards granted by a previously-unrelated entity shall not be subject to the minimum vesting provisions of this Section 14.2 and shall not count against the 5% limit described above.”
2.    Except as explicitly set forth herein, the Plan will remain in full force and effect.
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
 
By: /s/ E. Marie McKee_______ 
E. Marie McKee
Chair, Compensation Committee






CONFIDENTIAL
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000883720
<NAME> CELOX LABORATORIES INC
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                                  277,190
<SECURITIES>                                            651,367
<RECEIVABLES>                                            59,475
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                              52,673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      1,058,871
<PP&E>                                                  410,419
<DEPRECIATION>                                          251,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        1,267,319
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   134,079
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                 27,422
<OTHER-SE>                                            1,105,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          1,267,319
<SALES>                                                 160,793
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        160,793
<CGS>                                                    76,930
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           183,778
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (162,567)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (162,567)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (162,567)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.06)
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilbert Franklin CAMPBELL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6600

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Gilbert Franklin Campbell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gilbert Franklin Campbell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and motion to reconsider the order denying his § 2255 motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Campbell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Campbell’s motions for a certificate of appealability and for transcripts at government expense, and we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Jevon GIBSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-4383

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 27, 2018.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

 

Ariba, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-117437, 333-107864, 333-61064, 333-73458, 333-81773,333-89119, 333-95665, 333-33544, 333-46820, and 333-84916) of Ariba, Inc. of our report dated December 6, 2005 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Ariba, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2005 and 2004, and therelated consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2005, management’s assessment of the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting as of September 30, 2005, which report appears in the September 30, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Ariba,Inc. 

 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

December 7, 2005
EXHIBIT
31.1
  CERTIFICATION
  PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  I, Gerald
E. Bisbee, Jr., certify that:
  1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ReGen Biologics, Inc. (the
“registrant”);
  2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 officers 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 officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control 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 control 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.
  Date:
August 8, 2008
  By:
              /s/
      GERALD E. BISBEE, JR.Name:
              Gerald
      E. Bisbee, Jr.Title:
              President
      and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23.1

                        Independent Accountants' Consent
                        --------------------------------



The  Board  of  Directors
Genesis  Bioventures  Inc.

We  consent  to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on
Form  S-8  of  Genesis  Bioventures  Inc. of our report dated April 6, 2004 with
respect  to  the  consolidated  balance sheets of Genesis Bioventures Inc. as of
December  31,  2003  and  2002,  and  the  related  consolidated  statements  of
operations and shareholders' equity  and cash flows for the years then ended and
the  period  from  inception  on  September 19, 1994 to December 31, 2003, which
report  appears  in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Genesis Bioventures Inc.

Our  report  dated  April  6, 2004 contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that  the  Company  has  suffered  recurring  losses from operations which raise
substantial  doubt  about  its  ability  to  continue  as  a going concern.  The
consolidated  financial  statements  do  not  include any adjustments that might
result  from  the  outcome  of  that  uncertainty.

/s/ KPMG  LLP
Chartered  Accountants

Vancouver,  Canada
April  14,  2004


                                     E - 74
<PAGE>
#### FO2GO LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. PINTEREST, INC., SmugMug Inc., Tumblr, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., Defendants-Appellees

2016-1903, 2016-1904, 2016-1905

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

January 13, 2017

David R. Bennett, Direction IP Law, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Stephen Brauerman, Bayard, P.A:, Wilmington, DE.

Mark A. Lemley, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendants-appellees Pin-terest, Inc., Tumblr, Inc., Yahoo! Inc. also represented by Ryan M. Kent.

Jerry Robin Selinger, Patterson & Sheridan LLP, Dallas, TX, for defendant-appellee SmugMug Inc.

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam (Lourie, Taranto, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
MarkS. Burke 

### 46 KingWbod G 

## Kingwood, TX77339 nUUST°* TE**s 9 June, 2015 Court of"Appeals First District ofTexas 301 Fannin St Houston, Texas 77002-2066 Dear Sir or Madam, 

### ,ST. F"-E0/N 

### 46 Kingwbod Greens Dr \*rmrof:*pr>EMq



### RE: Requestfor copy ofSupplemental Clerk'sRecord perletterdated 29 May (end.) Court of Appeals Number: 01-14-01028-CV- Trial Court Case Number: 2014-63727 

### Irefer to above and now enclose one legal sized USPS Priority Mail Prepaid envelope for your convenience in orderthat you may send a copy of the Clerks' Supplemental Record by return. 

### Ifyou have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me via email at mark@browserweb.com or phone 832-654-3511 or fax 866-705-0576. Thanking you in advance. 

## Sincere

Mark End*s HLK COPY

N p 

### g /£*S. COURTOFAPPEALS. FIRSTDISTRICT 

### m f'&'i*}301 Fann|n street " \?^> Houston, Texas 77002-2066

o M 

## M^-39, RE: Case No. 01-14-01028-CV <*M$ 

# a Style: Browserweb Media Agency, Marx Burke ty-^^ v. Maxus Energy Corporation 5W Please be advised a supplemental clerk's record wst|kriled in the above referenced cause on May 29, 2015. '5-v T. C. Case « 2014-63727 Christopher A.^gryie, Clerk of the Court The Honorable Harris Co.;n£k> District Clerk's Office



## - civil c4p Harris County Distric^Gierk
- Civil 

### 201 Caroline, Ste 42$^ Houston, tx noaX~>^ DELIVERED VIA I-MS^



## .J~£\ COURTOFAPPEALS, FIRSTDIS&tCT .£;*&}301 FanninStreet 4J 

### C*><~J Houston,Texas77002-2066 (q?^ 'Wf May 29. 2015 RE: Case No. 01-14-0M2$%V .'015



### Style: Browserweb Medi^Agency, Mar* Burke v. Maxus Ena^jJ -Corporation Please be a(*vi<Sigd a supplemental clerk's record was filed in the above referenced cause Nay May 29, 2015. TT. C. Case #,,.$0*4-63727 Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court >-' The Honorable Harris County District Clerk's Office 

# 4$ itS? - Civil ^^i Harris County District Clerk - Civil 

### <£%-y 201 Caroline, Ste 420 ^^ Houston, TX 77002 %»?' DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL
##### 



Exhibit 10.72
 
   
    Base Salary
    
    $
    250,000Target Incentive at 100% of Plan
    
    $
    125,000Over-Achievement Bonus Opportunity
    
    $
    80,000
  %
    
    %Weight
    
    Performance Metric
    
    Target
    
    Achieve
    
    Payout75

    %
        
    Corporate EBITDA
    
    $
    28,000,000
    *
    
    
    85
    %
    
    
    70
    %90
    %
    
    
    80
    %95
    %
    
    
    90
    %100
    %
    
    
    100
    %25
    %
        
    Corporate Revenue
    
    $
    130,249,000
    
    
    
    90
    %
    
    
    70
    %93
    %
    
    
    80
    %96
    %
    
    
    90
    %100
    %
    
    
    100
    %
 
 *
    
    Excludes accrual for 2007 Executive Incentive Program  www.navisite.com




---



##### 



For example:
    
    Corp EBITDA
    
    = $31MM$3MM / $4MM
    
    = 75%75% x $80,000
    
    = $60,000
      
 /s/ John Gavin
    
    10/25/06Signed  John Gavin
    
    Date
 www.navisite.com
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105

- 2498

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

May 8 , 2013

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Documentation of Changes from EO 12866 Review

FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO: Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 201 2

- 01 0 2

This memorandum documents the docket entries which describe the changes due to the EO 12866 Review of the Heavy

- Duty Engine and Vehicle, and Nonroad Technical Amendment Direct Final Rule and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking . The corresponding entries in Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 201 2

- 0 10 2 are the following:

Document s Submitted to Initiate E.O. 12866 Review :

o EO12866 HD and NR Technical Amendment NPRM_20130304. pdf

o EO12866 HD and NR Technical Amendment DFR and Final Rule_20130304. pdf Documentation of Changes Made During OMB Review under E.O. 128666 :

o EPA and NHTSA Technical Amendments Briefing for OMB 03_26_2013.pdf

o EO12866_EPA

- NHTSA joint HD_NR_Technical Amendment_DFR

4_ 12_2013. pdf

o EO12866_EPA

- NHTSA joint HD_NR_Technical Amendment_DFR and Final Rule_RESPONSE 20130423. pdf

o EO12866_EPA

- NHTSA joint HD_NR_Technical Amendment_DFR and Final Rule 4_24_2013. pdf

o Email: 52 EPANHTSA Response pertaining to Heavy

- Duty Technical Amendments RIN 2060

- AR48.pdf

o File: EO12866_EPA

- NHTSA joint HD_NR_Technical Amendment 2060

- AR48 DFR and Final Rule FRN_20130502.pdf

o File: EO12866_EPA

- NHTSA joint HD_NR_Technical Amendment 2 060

- AR48 DFR and Final Rule FRN_20130507.pdf Documentation to Conclude E.O. 12866 Review:

o File: EO12866_ HD_NR_Technical Amendment 2060

- AR48 DFR_ Final_Rule _20130508.pdf2 o File: EO12866_ HD_NR_Technical Amendment 2060

- AR48 NPRM _20130508.pdf
Maria MOYERS v. BALDWIN MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. et al.

1131074

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

Affirmed.
Kerontae D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2945

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2018

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kaitlin Weiss, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED . *See**West v. State* , 22 So.3d 797, 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that motions for out-of-state jail credit must be raised under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 ).

Wolf, Bilbrey, and Kelsey, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier GARCIA, a.k.a. Beaver, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-50470

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 25, 2017

Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Carol M. Lee, Assistant U.S, Attorney, Cynthia Lynne Millsaps, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US *775Attorney, San Diego, CA, Thomas T. Wat-Mnson, II, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Francisco Javier Garcia, Pro Se

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Francisco Javier Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Garcia contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Garcia a sentence reduction based on its determination that a reduction would pose a serious threat to the public in light of his significant criminal history and the circumstances of the offense. *See*U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); *United States v. Lightfoot,*626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, contrary to Garcia’s contention, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts, and thoroughly explained its determination that a reduction was unwarranted. *See United States v. Trujillo,*713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.