alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 11-1523.

#### Woodruff, Trustee of Legacy Healthcare, Inc., dba New Horizon Developmental Center *v.*Indiana Family and Social Services Administration et al.

Sup. Ct. lnd. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.24



March 21, 1997



Mr. Jack Stiffler
34 Lake Shore Drive
Hopkinton, MA   01748

Dear Jack:

As we discussed last week, I have informed the Board of Directors of your
impending retirement. I also discussed our mutual desire to continue some
relationship in which we can utilize your unique knowledge to further the
development and market opportunities of the Fulcrum technology.  The Board has
approved the following terms, which you and I had discussed earlier:

Upon your retirement on March 29, 1997, the Company has agreed to hire you back
as a part-time consultant at the rate of $50,000 for a one-year period.  This
contract may be renewed by mutual agreement at the end of each year.  If, at the
end of the first year, you are willing to extend the contract but Sequoia is
not, then a "contract termination" payment will be paid by Sequoia in the amount
of $25,000.  While the contract remains in effect, you will provide Sequoia with
technical and marketing assistance totaling no more than 500 hours during the
one-year period and no more than 50 hours during any one month.  A rate for
additional hours will be negotiated if required.

As an administrative convenience to both you and the Company, you will be
considered a "contract" employee, and as such your pay will be subject to normal
withholding of income and FICA taxes.  This arrangement will require the Company
to pay the matching FICA tax and will eliminate the need for you to pay any
Federal Self-Employment Tax.

Since you will still be considered an employee of the Company, all of your stock
options will continue to vest, and those options which have already vested need
not be exercised until the consulting relationship ends or the options expire,
according to the terms of the applicable Option Plan.

This employee status will also allow you to continue full participation in the
401K plan.  You will not be eligible for benefits such as health, life
insurance, disability insurance, or for vacation, sick, or holiday pay.  You
will be eligible for COBRA coverage if you so elect.

While you continue as a consultant, your office and telephone will continue to
be available for your use, and your access to the Sequoia facility will be
unchanged.
<PAGE>
 
Mr. Jack Stiffler
March 21, 1997
Page 2


Your acceptance of the terms of this agreement will be indicated by your
signature below.  I hope that you find your other interests and projects
rewarding.

Best regards,





Michael Stewart
President and CEO

JMS:dbc



Agreed and Accepted: _____________________________     March  ____, 1997
                           Jack Stiffler
<Page>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-44581, 33-44582, 33-45491, 333-106330, 333-39738 and 333-66426 of Public
Service Enterprise Group Incorporated (the "Company") on Form S-8 and
Registration Statement Nos. 33-49123, 333-47714, 333-86372, and 333-101400 of
the Company on Form S-3 of our report dated February 17, 2004 (which expresses
an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the
restatement described in Note 2, the adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets," and the
adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 143, "Accounting for
Asset Retirement Obligations" described in Note 3), appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2003.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey

February 25, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5600]


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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Motorola Electronic Systems Manufacturing 
Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 10, 1997, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the Motorola Electronic 
Systems Manufacturing Consortium (``Consortium'') has filed written 
notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal 
Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) 
the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed 
for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery 
of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of 
the parties are: Motorola, Inc., Schaumburg, IL; Georgia Tech Research 
Corporation, Atlanta, GA; and Electronic Packaging Services, Atlanta, 
GA.
    The Consortium's area of planned activity is to develop mechanical 
design and analysis methodology using advanced computer simulation and 
modeling capabilities allowing rapid development of low cost mixed mode 
modules.
    Membership in the Consortium will remain open and the Consortium 
will file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in 
membership.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-5600 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
1 The Honorable Louis F. Oberdorfer, United States Dist rict Judge for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0491n.06 Filed: June 10, 2005

Case No. 04-1657 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. SIGNATURE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants TIM TYLER MOTORS, INC., a Michigan Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: BATCHELDER and COLE, Circuit Judges; OBERDORFER, 1 District Judge. ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant Tim Tyler Motors, Inc. (“Tyler”) appeals the district c ourt’s grant of summary judgment to Third-PartyDefendant-Appellee General Motors Corporation (“ GM”) in this diversity action raising issues under Michigan state law. This lawsuit began when GM sued Signature Automotive Group, Inc. (“Signature”), a company in the business of purchasi ng vehicles for rental car companies, to recover certain incentive payments that GM had made to Signature under a contract that GM claimed Signature breached. Signature responded by filing a third-party claim against Tyler, the GM dealer2 that agreed to place Signature’s vehicle orders w ith GM, alleging that Tyler’s mistakes in ordering the vehicles caused Signature to breach its agreement with GM. Tyler filed counterclaims against both GM and Signature, and the matter before us invol ves only Tyler’s appeal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment to GM on Tyler’s contract, fraud, and statutory claims. Specifically, Tyler argues that the district c ourt erred in the following ways: 1) by finding no genuine dispute of material f act as to whether GM engaged in bad faith conduct in its dealings with Tyler; 2) by finding that GM did not violate any contractual duties to Tyler with regard to reinvoicing vehicles or providing retail incentives; 3) by refusing to find that GM had committed fraud or fraud by omission in its dealings with Tyler; and 4) by finding that GM’s alleged bad faith and fraudulent conduct did not constitute a violation of M ICH
. C OMP
. L AWS § 445.1574(1)(a). After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, the parties’ briefs, and counsels’ arguments, we are convinced that th e district court did not err in its conclusions. As the district court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised, and clearly articulates the reasons underlying its decision, issu ance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM

.
#### James H. BRADY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eric T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General for the State of New York, Defendant-Appellee.

16-3122-cv

United,States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

March 1, 2018

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: James H. Brady, pro se, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: David Lawrence III, Assistant Solicitor *61General, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Steven C. Wu, Deputy Solicitor General, for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, New York.

PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, GUIDO CALABRESI, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant James H. Brady, proceeding *pro se,*appeals from a judgment entered August 15, 2016. Brady sued the New York Attorney General under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking an injunction to require defendant-appellee Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, to investigate and prosecute alleged judicial corruption related to Brady’s prior unsuccessful state court litigation over the air rights to the space above the building in which he owned' an apartment. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice because Brady lacked standing to compel the Attorney General to investigate or prosecute the state court judges who ruled against him, and Brady appealed. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review *de novo*a district court’s determination on standing. *Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.,*767 F.3d 79, 84-85 (2d Cir. 2014). To establish constitutional standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact that is causally connected to the challenged conduct and that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. *Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) (citing *Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,*504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). We conclude that the district court properly determined that Brady lacked standing for substantially the reasons set forth in its July 13, 2016 opinion and order.

Although the judgment of the district court stated that the dismissal was “with prejudice,” a caveat not applicable to dismissals for lack of federal jurisdiction, *see e.g., Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC,*822 F.3d 47, 64-55 (2d Cir. 2016); *Hernandez v. Conriv Realty Assocs.,*182 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 1999), we instead understand the district court (a) to have meant that the complaint asserts only claims that Brady cannot pursue in federal court, and (b) to have had in mind that Brady has been warned by the state court not to continue his “near perfect example of frivolous conduct” in “prosecuting claims that have either been determined or that he has been told are not ripe,” *see Brady v. 450 W. 31st St. Owners Corp.,*2014 WL 3515939, at *13 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 15, 2014).

We have considered all of Brady’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment is deemed amended to incorporate our understanding set forth above, and as thus amended is AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

L.T. Etchison, Jr., Appellant

No. 06-15-00134-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 18th District Court of 

Johnson County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

F48379). Memorandum Opinion delivered 

by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss 

and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, L.T. Etchison, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 15, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

THOMAS HOFMEISTER, ) a/k/a THOMAS MICHAEL HOFFMIESTER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D16-4171 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed February 7, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Deno Economou, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, KHOUZAM, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 9455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5171]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice (97-024)]


Notice of Prospective Patent License

agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

action: Notice of prospective patent license.

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

summary: NASA hereby gives notice that Global Dynamics International, 
Inc., of Ann Arbor, MI 48108, has applied for a partially exclusive 
license to practice the invention described in NASA Case No. MSC-22532-
1, entitled ``Adaptive Speech Recognition System and Method,'' which is 
assigned to the United States of America as represented by the 
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 
Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent 
to Johnson Space Center.

date: Responses to this notice must be received by May 2, 1997.

for further information contact: James M. Cate, Patent Attorney, Lyndon 
B. Johnson Space Center, Mail Stop HA, Houston, TX 77058-3696, 
telephone (281) 483-1001.

    Dated: February 21, 1997.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-5171 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
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 Quarterly Report of Telestone Technologies Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Yu Xiaoli,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted 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) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Dated:
August 12, 2010




By:
                  /s/
      Yu XiaoliName:
                  Yu
      XiaoliTitle:
                  Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal FinancialOfficer)
Exhibit 23



                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-67941) pertaining to the Pulaski Furniture Corporation 1996 Salaried
Employees'  Stock  Purchase  Plan of our report  dated  December  1, 1998,  with
respect  to the  consolidated  financial  statements  and  schedule  of  Pulaski
Furniture  Corporation  included in the Annual  Report  (Form 10-K) for the year
ended November 1, 1998.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Ernst & Young LLP

Winston-Salem, North Carolina
January 22, 1999
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1699

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Derrick Estell

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs

____________

 Submitted: November 16, 2015

Filed: November 20, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Derrick Estell directly appeals after he pled guilty to two counts of brandishing

a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, and the district court sentenced him

1

The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States DistrictJudge for the Western 1

District of Arkansas.
to 32 years in prison. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Estell’s prison term is

substantively unreasonable.

2

Upon careful review, we conclude that counsel’s argument lacks merit because

Estell’s prison term, representing the statutory minimum, is not subject to review for

reasonableness. See United States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006). 

Furthermore, having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________

Counsel has also filed a letter pursuant to FederalRule of Appellate Procedure

2

28(j), citing Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). We conclude that the

Johnson decision has no bearing on Estell’s convictions or sentence.

-2-
# C_2021513EN.01003501.xml

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/35

---

Action brought on 25 October 2021 — LW Capital v Commission

(Case T-690/21)

(2021/C 513/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LW Capital (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Ziegler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | partially annul the Commission’s Decision of 3 June 2021 on State aid SA.56826 (2020/N) — Germany — [2020 reform of support for cogeneration] (Reform of the German Combined Heat and Power Generation Act 2020 (‘KWKG’)) and State aid SA.53308 (2019/N) — Germany — Change of support to existing CHP plants 2019 (§ 13 KWKG) (OJ 2021 C 306, pp. 1 and 2), to the extent that it does not raise concerns in respect of (i) the support of CHP electricity generation in new, modernised and retrofitted high-efficiency CHP installations and (ii) the support of CHP electricity generation in existing highly efficient gas-fired CHP installations in the district heating sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

partially annul the Commission’s Decision of 3 June 2021 on State aid SA.56826 (2020/N) — Germany — [2020 reform of support for cogeneration] (Reform of the German Combined Heat and Power Generation Act 2020 (‘KWKG’)) and State aid SA.53308 (2019/N) — Germany — Change of support to existing CHP plants 2019 (§ 13 KWKG) (OJ 2021 C 306, pp. 1 and 2), to the extent that it does not raise concerns in respect of (i) the support of CHP electricity generation in new, modernised and retrofitted high-efficiency CHP installations and (ii) the support of CHP electricity generation in existing highly efficient gas-fired CHP installations in the district heating sector;

| — | order the Commission to bear its own costs and, in addition, to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear its own costs and, in addition, to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

By its single plea, the applicant challenges the decision at issue for ‘infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. That infringement consists in the fact that the Commission should have had concerns in relation to the compatibility of the KWKG 2020 aid scheme proposed by Germany and would therefore have been under an obligation to open the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU. As the Commission failed to act, it infringed the procedural rights of the applicant.

The applicant alleges the infringement of procedural rights under Article 108(2) in conjunction with the infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and infringements of the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and legitimate expectations, as well as an error of assessment of the facts.

---
exhibit_4-26.htm










Exhibit 4.26


 


TECNOENERGY BUILDING RIGHT AGREEMENT


 



ENGLISH SUMMARY OF ITALIAN VERSION1


 




1. Preliminary Note


 


The building (superficie) right, regulated by article 952 of the Italian Civil Code, is particularly appropriate for the construction of photovoltaic plants, as it allows the grantee of the building right to be owner of the plant whereas the title of the land remains with the grantor.







For the construction and the maintenance of the photovoltaic plant (“PV Plant”) on the land (Municipality of Canaro (RO), sheet 9, parcels 120 and 122; sheet 10, parcels 18, 19, 21, 53, 55, 56, 57, 116, 154, 156, 157, 160, 161, 163, 165, 167 and 169) (the “Land”), on July 7, 2011 the company Tecnoenergy S.r.l. entered into a sale and purchase and building right agreement with Solemax S.r.l. (“Solemax”) and with the previous owners of the Land whereby the previous owners of the Land granted a 21-year building right to Tecnoenergy S.r.l. and transferred the ownership of the Land to Solemax. The agreement has been executed in Occhiobello (RO), authenticated by the Notary Mauro Coppola, Repertorio no. 75.174, Raccolta no. 14.467, registered in Rovigo and filed with the Conservatoria dei Registri Immobiliari on July 28, 2011.







2. Main content of the agreement


 



	
1. Execution date

	
July 7, 2011


	
2. Previous Owners

	
Messrs. Giovanni Polonio and Sergio Bianchi and Ms. Angelina Rondanin


	
3. Current Owner

	
Solemax


	
4. Portion of the land

	
Municipality of Canaro (RO), sheet 9, parcels 120 and 122; sheet 10, parcels 18, 19, 21, 53, 55, 56, 57, 116, 154, 156, 157, 160, 161, 163, 165, 167 and 169, size 11.66.78 hectares.


	
5. Duration

	
21 years (until June 30, 2032)


	
6. Consideration

	
As consideration for the 21-year building right, Tecnoenergy paid an amount of Euro 686,676.76. This consideration has been fully paid upon execution and acknowledgement of such payment is included in the deed.


	
7. Easements

	
An electric easement right is in place in favour of Enel on parcel 159.


	
8. Competent Court

	
Exclusive jurisdiction of the court of Rovigo.


















1 The original language version is on file with the Registrant and is available upon request.