alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
      10.2

     

    VioQuest
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    Outside
      Director 

    Compensation
      Arrangement

     

     

    The
      following is a summary of the compensation arrangements for directors of
      VioQuest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) who are not employees of the
      Company (“Outside Directors”). Directors who are employees of the Company do not
      receive compensation for their service on the Board and shall receive
      compensation only in their capacities as employees. The cash compensation
      arrangements are summarized below and do not become effective until the
      Company’s next completed financing transaction: 

     

    


    
      	1.	
              Retainer.
                Each Outside Director shall be entitled to a retainer of $15,000
                per year,
                payable on such director’s reelection by the stockholders. For new Outside
                Directors, such payment shall be made upon their appointment.
                

            


    

    


    
      	2.	
              Committee
                Service.
                Each Outside Director serving on a committee of the Board shall be
                entitled to a fee of $1,500 per meeting of such committee. In addition
                to
                such committee meeting fees, the chair of each Board committee shall
                receive a fee of $2,000 per year.

            


    

    


    
      	3.	
              Hourly
                Fee.
                If any Outside Director is requested by management or the Board to
                provide
                services on any special projects that may arise from time to time,
                the
                Corporation shall pay to such director an hourly fee of $500. Prior
                to
                payment for such service, such Outside Director shall submit for
                approval
                by the Compensation Committee an itemized summary of the services
                rendered
                by such director and the time spent.


            


    

    


    
      	4.	
              Limitation
                of Cash Fees.
                Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event shall any Outside Director
                be
                entitled to receive from the Corporation in any fiscal year aggregate
                cash
                fees exceeding $60,000. Any excess that would otherwise be payable
                to an
                Outside Director shall be paid in the form of an equity compensation
                award, which shall be recommended by the Compensation Committee and
                approved by the Board.
2017-0158.

#### State v. Kelly.

Athens App. No. 15CA11, 2016-Ohio-8582.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.
#### In the Matter of Jolanda K., Respondent, v Damian B., Appellant.

[56 NYS3d 41]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Tracey A. Bing, J.), entered on or about November 5, 2015, which, after a fact-finding determination that respondent committed the family offenses of disorderly conduct, harassment in the second degree, and assault in the third degree, granted petitioner an order of protection, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The finding that respondent committed the offenses of disorderly conduct, harassment in the second degree, and assault in the third degree is supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 832). Petitioner testified that, while she was nine months pregnant, respondent grabbed her forcefully by the wrist, then grabbed her by the shoulders and shook her, causing her substantial pain, and refused to allow her to use the bathroom. These acts constitute harassment in the second degree (Penal Law § 240.26 [1]; *see Matter of Chigusa Hosono D. v Jason George D.,*137 AD3d 631 [1st Dept 2016]; *Matter of Tamara A. v Anthony Wayne S.,*110 AD3d 560, 561 [1st Dept 2013]). These acts also constitute assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]; *see Matter of Martha B. v Julian P.,*133 AD3d 418 [1st Dept 2015]). Petitioner was concerned for the safety of her unborn child, who was kicking in a way that petitioner had not previously experienced, and she was in so much pain that she went to the emergency room for medical treatment.

Petitioner’s testimony as to respondent’s behavior at the *540property managers’s office as well as on the street outside the office establishes disorderly conduct (Penal Law § 240.20 [1], [3]; *see Matter of William M. v Elba Q.,*121 AD3d 489 [1st Dept 2014]; *Matter of Rebecca M.T. v Trina J.M.,*134 AD3d 551 [1st Dept 2015]).

We perceive no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations (see *Matter of Melind M. v Joseph P.,*95 AD3d 553, 555 [1st Dept 2012]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Manzanet-Daniels and Webber, JJ.
No. 12-8349.

#### Chi Mak *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-574.

#### Walden *v.*Fiore et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari granted.
No. 12-8269.

#### Patten *v.*Lake County, California, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14127]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 051898B]


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is 
scheduling a public meeting of its enforcement oversight committee in 
June, 1998 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the 
exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be 
brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if 
appropriate.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 16, 1998. See SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION for specific dates and times.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Saugus, MA. See SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION for specific locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, 
New England Fishery Management Council (781) 231-0422. Requests for 
special accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery 
Management Council, 5 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906-1036; telephone: (781) 
231-0422.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Meeting Dates and Agenda

    Tuesday, June 16, 1998, 9:30 a.m.-- Enforcement Committee.

Meeting

    Location: Council Office, 5 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906; telephone 
(781) 231-0422.
    The committee will discuss the effectiveness of current management 
measures, especially of trip limits, and review the penalty schedule 
used by General Counsel Northeast.
    Although other issues not contained in this agenda may come before 
this Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the 
subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted 
to those issues specifically listed in this notice.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days 
prior to the meeting dates.

    Dated: May 21, 1998.
Bruce C. Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 98-14127 Filed 5-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
#### Com. v. Bennett

11/16/2015

243 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 122 A.3d 454
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**LONG BEACH SECURITIES CORP.**

**RESTATED OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

I, Douglas A. Potolsky, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this report on Form 10–K and all reports on Form 10–D required to befiled in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10–K of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-WL1 (the ‘‘Exchange Act periodic reports’’);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain anyuntrue 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to beprovided under Form 10–D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.             Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material respects; and

 

5.             All of the reports on assessment of compliance with Servicing Criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with Servicing Criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a–18 and 15d–18have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10–K. 

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:  Deutsche BankNational Trust Company.

 

 

 

Date:  As of March 15,2007

|   |   | /s/ Doug Potolsky                                                                            |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:  DougPotolsky                                                                     |
|   |   | Title:   President and Senior Officer in Charge of Securitization of the Depositor |
Dismiss and Opinion Filed January 17, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-01402-CR LENNIE EARBIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219-80478-2012



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Evans, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Francis Lennie Earbin was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a child. The trial court sentenced him to tw enty-five years in prison. On app eal, we affirmed the trial court’s judgment and mandate issued November 30, 2015. On September 29, 2017, appellant filed a Motion for Recusal or Disqualification in the trial court, seeking to disqualify “Judge Scott Becker and numerous Collin County officials.” Judge Becker declined to recuse and referred the matter to the Presiding Judge of the First Administrative Judicial Region who, on October 3, 2017, denied appe llant’s motion to the extent it sought to disqualify Judge Becker. Appellant then filed a notice of appeal of the denial of his motion. For the reasons that follow, we conc lude we lack jurisdic tion over this appeal.–2– The procedure for recusal of judges set out in rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure applies in criminal cases. De Leon v. Aguilar , 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 18a(j)(1)(A). There is no final judgment in this case. Absent a timely appeal of a final conviction or one that disposes of a ll issues and parties in a case, we lack jurisdiction over a trial court’s stand-alone order denying a motion to recuse.
Green v. State , 374 S.W.3d 434, 445 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2(f).

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). 171402F.U05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
LENNIE EARBIN, Appellant
No. 05-17-01402-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 219-80478-2012. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Evans and Boatright participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered January 17, 2018.
No. 12-8328.

#### Parker *v.*Warren, Administrator, New Jersey State Prison, et al.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
1

Fallon, Gail

From: Jay Baker <jbaker@utah.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 12:14 PM

To: Fallon, Gail

Subject: Re: Looking for another SIP file

Attachments: BART Analysis.pdf

Gail, 

I think this is the document you are asking about. I'm sorry it was missed in the TSD. If you are 

looking for something else please let me know. 

Thanks, 

Jay Baker

Utah Department of Environmental Quality

Division of Air Quality

(801) 536-4015

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Fallon, Gail <fallon.gail@epa.gov> wrote: 

Hi Jay – There’s a file referenced on p. 10 of the Staff Review document (Chapter 1 of the TSD) for a 

spreadsheet called “BART Analysis.pdf.” The reference is in footnote “b” to Table 2. We are not finding this 

file in the SIP documents and are wondering if you can provide it. 

 

Thanks, 

Gail 

 

Gail Fallon 

Environmental Engineer 

Air Quality Planning Unit 

US EPA, Region 8 

Denver, CO 

(303) 312-6281
#### In the Matter of Transit Workers Union, Local 100, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority, Respondent. Victor Martinez, Nonparty Appellant.

[57 NYS3d 530]—

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award dated May 23, 2014, the petitioner, Transit Workers Union, Local 100, and nonparty Victor Martinez appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County *531(Silber, J.), dated January 29, 2015, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The respondent, New York City Transit Authority, terminated the employment of nonparty Victor Martinez, a bus driver and a member of the petitioner, Transit Workers Union, Local 100, because of an incident involving Martinez and a pedestrian. The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to vacate an arbitration award finding that the respondent had just cause to terminate Martinez’s employment because of the incident. The Supreme Court, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Where, as here, an arbitration award was rendered after a consensual arbitration process pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, the award may not be vacated unless it violates a strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation of the arbitrator’s power *(see*CPLR 7511 [b]; *Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers’ Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO,*6 NY3d 332, 336 [2005]; *Matter of Romaine v New York City Tr. Auth.,*82 AD3d 986 [2011]). The petitioner and Martinez contend on appeal that the award was irrational. Contrary to their contention, the arbitrator’s award was supported by evidence in the record and is, therefore, rational *(see Matter of Tarantino v MTA N.Y. City Tr. Auth.,*129 AD3d 738, 739 [2015]).

Contrary to the further contention of the petitioner and Martinez, the penalty of termination from employment was not irrational, and the penalty did not violate any strong public policy or clearly exceed an enumerated limitation on the arbitrator’s power *(see*CPLR 7511 [b]; *Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers’ Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO,*306 AD2d 486 [2003]; *Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers Union of Am., Local 100, AFL-CIO,*243 AD2d 567, 567 [1997]; *Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Transport Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, Local 100,*220 AD2d 749 [1995]; *cf. also Matter of Fernandez v New York City Tr. Auth.,*120 AD3d 407 [2014]).

Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Maltese and Duffy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21.01

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                              |  |                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|NAME                                                          |  | STATE OR JURISDICTION OFINCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION
|Deterrence Acquisition Ltd.                                   |  | UK                                                   
|Macrovision Europe Limited                                    |  | United Kingdom                                       
|Macrovision International Holding Limited Partnership         |  | Cayman Islands                                       
|Macrovision Israel, Ltd.                                      |  | Israel                                               
|Macrovision Japan and Asia KK                                 |  | Japan                                                
|Macrovision Japan and Asia YK                                 |  | Japan                                                
|Macrovision Korea Co., Ltd.                                   |  | Korea                                                
|Macrovision Licensing & Holding B.V.                          |  | Netherlands                                          
|Macrovision Limited (formerly InstallShield Software Limited) |  | United Kingdom                                       
|Macrovision Service LLC                                       |  | Delaware                                             
|Macrovision Taiwan Ltd.                                       |  | Taiwan                                               
|Macrovision UK Limited                                        |  | United Kingdom                                       
|Trymedia Systems, Inc.                                        |  | Delaware                                             
|Trymedia Systems S.L.                                         |  | Spain                                                
|Zero G Software, Inc.                                         |  | California
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                            3,561
<SECURITIES>                     21,473
<RECEIVABLES>                   150,518
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                      86,925
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                272,253
<PP&E>                          374,875
<DEPRECIATION>                  186,039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  540,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           201,076
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                         56,988
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                      153,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    540,591
<SALES>                         156,476
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                156,476
<CGS>                            61,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    61,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 59,549
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                2,710
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  32,984
<INCOME-TAX>                      7,751
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              25,233
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     25,233
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0.56
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1970
STEPHEN V. TALMAGE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-339) Submitted: October 17, 1996 Decided: November 15, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen V. Talmage, Appellant Pro Se. Gilbert Steven Rothenberg, Gary R. Allen, Randolph L. Hutter, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Stephen V. Talmage appeals from the tax court's orders (1) entered March 11, 1996, granting summary judgment to the Commissioner and imposing a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6673(a)(1)(B) (1994) for pursuing a frivolous action in tax court; and, (2) entered April 17, 1996, denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm, based on the reasoning of the tax court. The government has filed a motion seeking sanctions against Talmage for noting a frivolous appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 38. We deny the motion without prejudice to file another motion should Talmage file another appeal in this court raising similar claims asthose raised in this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Kretschmann Farm, LLC v. Township of New Sewickley

08/03/2016

56 WAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 131 A.3d 1044
No. 12-7709.

#### Dobbs *v.*Crews, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-1587SD

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of South Dakota. * Eugene P. Kent, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: October 20, 1997

Filed: October 30, 1997

_____________ Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Eugene P. Kent appea

ls his conviction for mail fraud and the sentence imposed by the district court. Kent raises several contentions related to the sufficiency of the eviden ce to support the jury's verdict, the district court's denial of Kent's motion fo r new trial, and the district court's loss calculations and refusal to depar t downward under the sentencing guidelines. Because the appeal involves a straightforward application of settled principles of law, a discussion of the issues will serve no useful purpose. We thus affirm K

ent's conviction and sentence without an extended opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.