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

[770 NYS2d 526]

— Appeal from a judgment of Monroe County Court (Smith, J.), entered September 3, 1997, convicting defendant after a jury trial of sodomy in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.50 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). In assessing the weight of the evidence, “[g]reat deference is accorded to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor” *1476
      *(id.),*and there is no reason to disturb those credibility determinations herein *(see People v Shedrick,*66 NY2d 1015, 1017-1018 [1985], *rearg denied*67 NY2d 758 [1986]; *People v Early,*261 AD2d 967 [1999]).

We reject the further contention of defendant that the sentence of an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1272 to 25 years is unduly harsh and severe. In addition, defendant contends that he was “punished” for exercising his right to a trial inasmuch as the sentence imposed was more severe than the sentence in the plea offer that he rejected. “Given that the *quid pro quo*of the bargaining process will almost necessarily involve offers to moderate sentences that ordinarily would be greater . . ., it is . . . to be anticipated that sentences handed out after trial may be more severe than those proposed in connection with a plea” *(People v Pena,*50 NY2d 400, 412 [1980], *rearg denied*51 NY2d 770 [1980], *cert denied*449 US 1087 [1981]; *see Matter of Kelly v Safir,*96 NY2d 32, 40 [2001], *rearg denied*96 NY2d 854 [2001]). Here, contrary to defendant’s contention, there is no indication that the sentence imposed was “the product of vindictiveness” *(People v Thompson,*299 AD2d 889, 890 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 585 [2003]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Kehoe, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.
No. 10-7224.

#### Unula B. Abebe, Petitioner v. Matthew J. Perry, Jr.

562 U.S. 1148, 131 S. Ct. 926,

178 L. Ed. 2d 772,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 502.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 382 Fed. Appx. 282.
U.S. Department of Transportation Office ofthe Secretary OfTransportation
SUBJECT: Notice ofCommunication in Docket: FAA-2015-3491 FROM: Secretary Anthony 

### R. Foxx,@ TO: ChiefofDockets 

# Memorandum

DATE: November 23, 2015

On September 18, 2015, during a telephone conversationwith Representative Mike Bishop (R-MI-8), the Congressmanraised the subject ofair service between Lansing Capital Region International Airport (LAN) and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). Congressman Bishop expressed support for the continuation ofthis service given its importance to the community. I informed Congressman Bishop that I could not comment on the merits because the matter was under active consideration bythe Federal Aviation Administration. Please place this memorandum inthe appropriate Docket.
cc: Representative Mike Bishop (R-MI-8)
#### Ted Singer et al., Respondents, v Martin Riskin et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. Ravi Batra, Nonparty Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 875]

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Martin Riskin and Grace Turkisher, also known as Grace Riskin and the defendants’ attorney, Ravi Batra, appeal, as limited by their notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated July 11, 2002, as, sua sponte, imposed costs in the form of a reasonable attorney’s fee against Ravi Batra pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

*517Ordered the appeal by the defendants Martin Riskin and Grace Turkisher, also known as Grace Riskin is dismissed, as they are not aggrieved by the order and judgment appealed from *(see*CPLR 5511); and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from and reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.

Contrary to the contentions of the nonparty appellant, as a result of his frivolous conduct the Supreme Court properly imposed costs against him in the form of a reasonable attorney’s fee after providing him with a reasonable opportunity to be heard *(see*22 NYCRR 130.1). Santucci, J.P., Luciano, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<NAME> R.H. DONNELLEY INC.
<CIK>  0001065310
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          91,129
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   58,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,287
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,870
<PP&E>                                          53,383
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,171
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 415,829
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           88,519
<BONDS>                                        351,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,002
<OTHER-SE>                                   (115,904)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   415,829
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               124,327
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                188,052
<INCOME-TAX>                                    72,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            115,652
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    704
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   114,948
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.51


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         142,442
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                       932
<INVENTORY>                                      9,549
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,511
<PP&E>                                          27,087
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,970
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                     165,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   203,277
<SALES>                                        111,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,214
<CGS>                                           27,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    55
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,390
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,379
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,379
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.61


</TABLE>
# DLA San Joaquin celebrates Resiliency Day

/ Published Sept. 19, 2016
TRACY, California, 
Employees of DLA Distribution San Joaquin, Calif., located in Tracy, Calif., kicked off Resiliency Day on Sept. 7, but senior leadership went one step further and declared the entire month of September “Resiliency Month.”

"With all that is going on in the world today, people need to ensure they understand how to stay resilient in the face of adversity, in both their personal and professional lives. We are very fortunate to have a DLA Director that fully believes in and endorses a philosophy of resiliency in our workforce,” said DLA Installation Support San Joaquin site director Jonathan Mathews. “Given that, it is our job to ensure we train our leaders/supervisors in this effort and then we walk the talk with our personnel,” he added. 

On Resiliency Day, the distribution center kicked off the festivities with a 5K Resiliency Run/Walk. In addition to the run, throughout the week Pillar Champions manned booths in both cafeterias to talk with employees about the four pillars of resiliency: mental, social, physical and spiritual. The champions were on hand to provide information on programs such as the Employee Assistance Program, nutrition and fitness, Equal Employment Opportunity program and other programs of interest.

On Sept. 8, employees joined the ranks with the installation commander Marine Col. Dre Harrell and the site director for the 22 Push Up Challenge to raise awareness for the 22 veterans of the armed forces who commit suicide on a daily basis. 

During the remainder of the month, supervisors are having resiliency talks at the start of shift meetings and sharing resiliency videos in break rooms across the installation

“Resiliency is not the initiative of the day, week, or month, or the next fad or set of buzz words that are forgotten once the spotlight is off of the topic, but a way of life for all DLA Distribution San Joaquin personnel,” Mathews concluded.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17127]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (98-082)]


Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent license.

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

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice that GP:50 New York LTD of Grand 
Island, NY 14072, has applied for a partially exclusive license to 
practice the invention described and claimed in NASA Case Numbers LAR 
15280-2-SB and LAR 15280-3-SB, both entitled ``CRYOGENIC HIGH PRESSURE 
SENSOR,'' for which U.S. Patent Applications were filed and 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 Langley Research 
Center.

DATE: Responses to this notice must be received by August 25, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin W. Edwards, Patent Attorney, 
Langley Research Center, Mail Stop 212, Hampton, VA 23681-0001, 
telephone (757) 864-3230; fax (757) 864-9190.

    Dated: June 10, 1998.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-17127 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

In connection with the Annual Report of Bishop Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
E. Thrailkill, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and
          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 results of operations
          of the Company.

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

/s/  Robert E. Thrailkill
-----------------------------
     Robert E. Thrailkill
     Chairman of the Board,
     Chief Executive Officer and
     President

     July 14, 2004
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-112929 on Form S-3, RegistrationStatement No. 33-52782 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-63602 on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-72408 on Form S-3, and Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement Nos. 33-53563 and 33-53563-01 on Form S-3 of ourreport dated March 5, 2004, March 24, 2005 as to Note 21, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Duquesne Light Company, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatoryparagraph relating to the restatement discussed in Note 21) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Duquesne Light Company for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

March 24, 2005
# C_2017006EN.01000301.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Davitas GmbH v Stadt Aschaffenburg

(Case C-448/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Novel foods and novel food ingredients - Regulation (EC) No 258/97 - Article 1(2)(c) - Concept of foods and food ingredients with a new primary molecular structure))

(2017/C 006/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Davitas GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Stadt Aschaffenburg

Defendant:

Intervener: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Intervener:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 596/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘new primary molecular structure’ relates to foods or food ingredients which were not used for human consumption in the territory of the European Union before 15 May 1997.

---

(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.

1

---
<html>
	<head>
		<meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow" /><meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/patient-care/clinical-tools/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Ftobacco%2Fbasic_information%2Ffor-health-care-providers%2Fclinical-tools%2Findex.html" />	</head>
	<body></body>
	</html>
OESX-2014.03.31-EX10.9




Exhibit 10.9


Orion Energy Systems, Inc.
Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan
Updated January 24, 2014 (Effective April 2014)


	
		
	1.    Annual cash retainer:
	$40,000 (cash or stock) ($10,000 paid quarterly)

	2.    Board meeting fee:
	None

	3.    Committee meeting fee:
	None

	4.    Annual restricted stock grant:
	$45,000 grant date fair market value2

	5.    Annual Chairman retainer:
	$40,000 (cash or stock)1

	6.    Annual Ad Hoc Litigation Committee Chair retainer:
	$20,000 (cash or stock)1

	7.    Annual Audit Committee Chairman retainer:
	$30,000 (cash or stock)1

	8.    Annual Compensation Committee Chair retainer:
	$20,000 (cash or stock)1

	9.    Annual Governance Committee Chair retainer:
	$10,000 (cash or stock) 1

	10.    Reimburse out-of-pocket expenses:
	Yes




































______________________________
1 Form of compensation to be chosen by each individual prior to each fiscal year. Number of shares to be issued on third business day after release of annual (or quarterly, in case of quarterly retainer payments) earnings announcement based on closing price on such date.
2 Annual restricted stock grant on third business day after annual earnings announcement with the dollar value to be converted into a specific number of shares based on the closing sale price on such date - vest 1/3 each year on 12/31 after the grant date provided the grantee remains a director upon each vesting date.
No. 10-6941.

#### John A. Maranian, Petitioner v. Michigan.

562 U.S. 1094, 131 S. Ct. 802,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9467.

178 L. Ed. 2d 537,

December 6, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
No. 09-10764.

#### Ellis Carlyle Davis, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

562 U.S. 1171, 131 S. Ct. 980,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 307.

178 L. Ed. 2d 809,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 851, 131 S. Ct. 107, 178 L. Ed. 2d 66, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 6015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
             THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
             EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
             FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED
             IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
             STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                   20,745
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            32,518
<ALLOWANCES>                                354
<INVENTORY>                               7,994
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         63,935
<PP&E>                                   58,839
<DEPRECIATION>                           45,871
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           94,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    26,553
<BONDS>                                  40,993
<COMMON>                                  8,454
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                  68
<OTHER-SE>                               11,301
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             94,223
<SALES>                                  94,586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         94,974
<CGS>                                    71,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            81,074
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             66
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            100
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        2,193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          13,068
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      11,889
<DISCONTINUED>                           (8,637)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              3,252
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.45
        

</TABLE>
#### Cheryl M. Mollica, Respondent, v William A. Ruzza, Jr., et al., Defendants, and Synergix Funding Group, LLC, Appellant.

[54 NYS3d 678]

In an action to quiet title to real property, the defendant Synergix Funding Group, LLC, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated June 6, 2016, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 2005 and 5015 (a) (1) to vacate so much of a prior order of the same court dated April 15, 2016, as granted that branch of its unopposed motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint insofar as asserted it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In this action to quiet title to real property, the plaintiff moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 2005 and 5015 (a) (1) to vacate so much of an order dated April 15, 2016, as granted that branch of the unopposed motion of the defendant Synergix Funding Group, LLC (hereinafter the defendant), which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion, and the defendant appeals.

To prevail on her motion to vacate her default, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for her default in opposing the defendant’s motion, as well as a potentially meritorious opposition to the subject branch of the motion *{see*CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Infante v Breslin Realty Dev. Corp.,*95 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2012]; *L&L Auto Distribs. & Suppliers Inc. v Auto Collection, Inc.,*85 AD3d 734, 735 [2011]; *Dorio v County of Suffolk,*58 AD3d 594, 595 [2009]). The determination of what constitutes a reasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and in exercising that discretion, the court may accept law office failure as an excuse *(see*CPLR 2005; *Glukhman v Bay 49th St. Condomin**715*ium, LLC,*100 AD3d 594 [2012]; *Infante v Breslin Realty Dev. Corp.,*95 AD3d at 1076). However, law office failure should not be excused where a default results not from an isolated, inadvertent mistake, but from repeated neglect *(see Glukhman v Bay 49th St. Condominium, LLC,*100 AD3d at 595).

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated a reasonable excuse, based upon law office failure, for her default in opposing the defendant’s motion (see CPLR 2005, 5015 [a] [1]; *Infante v Breslin Realty Dev. Corp.,*95 AD3d at 1076; *L&L Auto Distrihs. & Suppliers Inc. v Auto Collection, Inc.,*85 AD3d at 735; *Dorio v County of Suffolk,*58 AD3d at 595). The plaintiff also demonstrated that she had a potentially meritorious opposition to the subject branch of defendant’s motion.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 2005 and 5015 (a) (1) to vacate so much of the prior order as granted that branch of the defendant’s unopposed motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint insofar as asserted it.

Chambers, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.