alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lily Liu, Respondent, v Jack Liu, Appellant.

[630 NYS2d 321]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about May 13, 1994, which insofar as appealed from, *sua sponte*appointed a private Referee to supervise disclosure and required defendant to pay the Referee’s fees and costs, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the matter remanded for designation of a Judicial Hearing Officer to supervise disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3104 (b).

Appeals from orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 12, 1994 and December 20, 1994, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendant’s motion to renew the order appointing a private Referee, and granted defendant’s motion to reargue but adhered to the determination to appoint such private Referee, respectively, dismissed as moot, without costs.

The IAS Court properly invoked its power to designate "one of its judges or a referee [to] supervise all or part of [the] disclosure procedure” (CPLR 3104 [a]), but erred in appointing as Referee a private attorney to whom all the parties did not consent. CPLR 3104 (b) provides that a court-employed "judicial hearing officer may be designated as a Referee under this section, or the court may permit all of the parties in an action to stipulate that a named attorney may act as referee”. Inasmuch as defendant did not so stipulate, the court was without power to appoint the attorney it named to act as a Referee.

Although we do not reach the question of whether, upon a finding of "special circumstances” or otherwise, the IAS Court has the general power under CPLR 3104 (a) to appoint a private attorney as Referee without all parties’ consent *(see, Lowitt v Korelitz,*152 AD2d 506, 507), we note that *Lee v Lee*(93 AD2d 221) and *Baker v General Mills Fun Group*(101 Misc 2d 193), relied upon by plaintiff and the IAS Court, were decided before the institutionalization of the Judicial Hearing Officer system (Judiciary Law § 850 *et seq.;*22 NYCRR part 122) and adoption of the 1983 amendment to CPLR 3104 *(but see, Matter of Sommer,*177 AD2d 489 [2d Dept]; CPLR 3104 [b] does not limit court’s general power under subdivision [a]). In any event, *533were we to reach the issue on its merits and to find such a power to exist, we would nonetheless remand the matter for a more detailed statement of the court’s factual findings.

Upon remand, we remind the IAS Court that it may avail itself of other methods to compel expeditious discovery, in addition to the appointment of a Judicial Hearing Officer to act as a Referee pursuant to CPLR 3104 (b), including the preclusion of evidence and the assessment of costs and sanctions, which might be appropriate in this case. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                              
|View History:                                                               
|                                                                            
|U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Imports From United Kingdom  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Imports From United Kingdom  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 3,119  | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 12-7435.

#### Rutledge *v.*McDonald, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### Theatre Row Phase II Associates, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 773]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Madden, J.), entered on or about March 21, 2002, which, inter alia, dismissed the complaint, denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment on its third counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“Additional rent” was based, in part, on a portion of profits, which consisted of gross revenue less expenses. In determining the profit factor, the IAS court correctly interpreted the unambiguous language of the lease as limiting the tenant’s right to include as expenses for a given fiscal year the management fees actually paid *in that same fiscal year.*

Plaintiff’s other contentions are unavailing since they are based upon a misreading of the order. No money judgment has been awarded. The City’s third counterclaim merely sought declaratory relief that the lease had been breached, and that is *188all the IAS court has granted. Concur—Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
*January 18, 2018*

2018-Ohio-157.]

2016-1785.

#### 600 Pioneer, L.L.C./CVS 3346, OH, L.L.C. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2015-2144. On joint motion to remand. Cause remanded to the Board of Tax Appeals to take further action as appropriate.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

I, R. Scott Vansant, Chief Financial Officer of Euramax International,Inc., certify that:

 

1.                    I havereviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Euramax International, Inc.;

 

2.                    Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.                    Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.                    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)              designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the period covered by this report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | March 25, 2004 | By:    | /s/ R. Scott Vansant                   |   |
|--------|----------------|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |           | Title: | Chief Financial Officer and  Secretary |

 

----
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1784

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 1, 1994

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

AN ACT

To restore the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian

Tribes of Alaska to the Department of the Interior list

of Indian entities recognized and eligible to receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 1784 RFH

1 SECTION 1. RESTORATION.

2 The Secretary of the Department of the Interior shall

3 restore to the list, published in the Federal Register on

4 October 21, 1993 pursuant to 25 C.F.R. Part 83, the tribe

5 defined and recognized in the Act of June 19, 1935 (49

6 Stat. 388), as amended, relating to the Tlingit and Haida

7 Indians of Alaska.

Passed the Senate November 24 (legislative day, November 23), 1993.

Attest: WALTER J. STEWART,

Secretary.
Exhibit-32.1 -- Certification per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 906)

I am the Chief Executive Officer of EZJR, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the
"Company").  I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-
KSB/A of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 and filed
with the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-KSB/A").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-KSB/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  August 4, 2008
        --------------
                                           /s/ T J Jesky
                                           ---------------------------
                                               T J Jesky
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
No. 12-590.

#### Emerick *v.*Prelesnik, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1522 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1522

    To direct the United States Sentencing Commission to promulgate 
     guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide sentencing 
    enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels for hate crimes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 6 (legislative day, September 27), 1993

Mrs. Feinstein (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Inouye, and 
Ms. Moseley-Braun) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 
             and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the United States Sentencing Commission to promulgate 
     guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide sentencing 
    enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels for hate crimes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement 
Act of 1993''.

SEC. 2. DIRECTION TO UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.

    (a) Definition.--In this Act, ``hate crime'' means a crime in which 
the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a 
property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because 
of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, 
ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation of any person.
    (b) Sentencing Enhancement.--Pursuant to section 994 of title 28, 
United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall 
promulgate guidelines or amend existing guidelines to provide 
sentencing enhancements of not less than 3 offense levels for offenses 
that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt 
are hate crimes. In carrying out this section, the United States 
Sentencing Commission shall ensure that there is reasonable consistency 
with other guidelines, avoid duplicative punishments for substantially 
the same offense, and take into account any mitigating circumstances 
that might justify exceptions.

                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 27732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13448]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than June 4, 1998.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Karen L. Grandstrand, Vice 
President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, P.O. Box 291, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. William H. Bosshard, La Crosse, Wisconsin; to acquire additional 
voting shares of Bosshard Banco, Ltd., La Crosse, Wisconsin, and 
thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of First National Bank of 
Bangor, Bangor, Wisconsin, and Intercity State Bank, Schofield, 
Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 15, 1998.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 98-13448 Filed 5-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 28007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13635]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Elementary, Secondary and Informal 
Education, Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Elementary, Secondary and 
Informal Education (#59).
    Date and Time: Thursday, June 11, 1998, 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., 
Friday, June 12, 1998, 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Place: National Science Foundation, Third Floor, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Donald Jones Program Director, Local 
Systemic Change Through Teacher Enhancement in Science Program, 
Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, 
Telephone (703) 306-1620.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Local Systemic Change Through 
Teacher Enhancement in Science proposals as part of the selection 
process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature including 
technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are within exemptions (4) and (6) of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), 
(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: May 18, 1998
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-13635 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
EX-32  MINERAL MOUNTAIN MINING & MILLING COMPANY
Exhibit 32

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

I, Delaine H. Gruber, director and president of Mineral Mountain Mining and
Milling Company (the Registrant) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge::

1.	This Annual Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a
or 15d 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 Registrant.

Date:  August 13, 2004

_/s/Delaine H. Gruber______________________

Delaine H. Gruber
Signature
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                              1,381
<SECURITIES>                       32,358
<RECEIVABLES>                     180,811
<ALLOWANCES>                        2,782
<INVENTORY>                       141,677
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  369,305
<PP&E>                            383,100
<DEPRECIATION>                    169,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    776,716
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             303,359
<BONDS>                                 0
<COMMON>                           56,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<OTHER-SE>                        102,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      776,716
<SALES>                           185,662
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  185,662
<CGS>                              86,429
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      86,429
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   86,588
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  7,073
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    41,780
<INCOME-TAX>                       10,370
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                31,410
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       31,410
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.72
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.71
        

</TABLE>
EX-10.36



 EXHIBIT 10.36 
 SUMMARY OF ATHERSYS, INC. 
 2012 CASH BONUS INCENTIVE PLAN 

On February 27, 2012, the Board of Directors of Athersys, Inc. (the “Company”), upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of
the Board of Directors of the Company, approved a cash bonus incentive plan (the “Plan”) for the year ended December 31, 2012 for the named executive officers of the Company. The Plan provides that each participant is eligible to earn
a bonus during the award term of January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. The Plan provides for the following target bonus percentages of the named executive officer’s salary during the award term, weighted as set forth below on the
achievement of specified corporate goals, with the remainder based on individual/functional performance. The corporate goals include advancing the Company’s clinical programs for MultiStem, executing against the established operating plan and
capital acquisition objectives, and advancement of strategic partnership and program activities. There is no formally adopted plan document for the Plan. 
  

				September 30,				September 30,	
	 Title
	    	Target
Bonus	 	 	Weighting on
Corporate 
Goals	 
	 Chief Executive Officer
	    	 	40	% 	 	 	100	% 
	 President & Chief Operating Officer
	    	 	33	% 	 	 	80	% 
	 Executive Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer
	    	 	33	% 	 	 	80	% 
	 Executive Vice President, Regenerative Medicine
	    	 	30	% 	 	 	60	% 
	 Vice President of Finance
	    	 	25	% 	 	 	60	%
No. 12-371.

#### Chappell, Warden *v.*Thomas.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari denied.