alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### SINNIT v. CAMBRIDGE VAL. AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY & STOCK BREEDERS’ ASS’N.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1898.)

Change of Venue—Affidavit—Sufficiency.

The rule that án affidavit on a motion for change of venue, by which it appears that the moving party expects to prove certain facts by certain witnesses, but disclosing no source of information that such witnesses would swear to the facts therein stated, is fatally defective, does not prevail in the Third department of the appellate division of this court.

Appeal from special term, Albany county.

Action by George A. Sinnit against the Cambridge Valley Agricultural Society & Stock Breeders’ Association. Motion by defendant to change place of trial denied, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before PARKER, P. J., and LAND ON, HERRICK, PUTNAM, and MERWIN, JJ.

John L. Pratt, Jr., for appellant.

Andrew Colvin, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The order denying the motion to change the place of trial recites the reading and filing of an affidavit “by which it appears that defendant expects to prove certain facts by certain witnesses residing in Washington county, but discloses no source of information that such witnesses will swear to the facts therein stated.” No affidavit was read in opposition to the motion, but it was disposed of upon *167the ground above quoted. Failure to allege upon what he founds his expectations that the witnesses named by him will testify to the facts stated is held in the First department to be a fatal defect in the moving papers, as we have heretofore pointed out in the case of Bell v. Whitehead Bros. Co., 5 App. Div. 555, 39 N. Y. Supp. 434; but we also held in the same case that such rule did not prevail in the Third department, but that the failure to make such statement might be taken into consideration in passing upon the merits of the motion. This motion was heard in the Third, and not in the First, department; and the failure to state the source of his information or expectation was not taken into consideration in passing upon the merits of the motion, because the merits were not passed upon by the court.

The order should therefore be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements of this appeal, and the motion remitted to the special term, to be considered upon the merits. All concur.
The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge 1

for the Southern District of Iowa.

___________

No. 95-4165

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Southern District of Iowa.

Richard Lee Christy, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 26, 1996

 Filed: May 7, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Lee Christy appeals the 181-month sentence imposed by the

district court after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of 1

a firearm. Christy challenges his enhancement under the Armed Career

Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), on the ground that his 1984

Iowa burglary conviction was not a qualifying violent felony under the

"generic burglary" standard of Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575

(1990). 

At sentencing, the district court observed that the charging

information for this offense stated that Christy had broken into "an

occupied structure or other place where anything of value is kept, to wit:

the Albia HyVee Food Store." If that store was "an
-2-

occupied structure," the offense would constitute generic burglary.

However, because the information also included the broader statutory

language, "or other place," see Iowa Code § 713.1 (1981), the court asked

defense counsel if the government should be required to produce additional

factual information that would likely be found in Christy's state court

guilty plea proceeding. Counsel conferred with Christy and responded that

sentencing should proceed on the record as it then stood. The court then

made a finding that this conviction was generic burglary and imposed the

ACCA enhancement. In these circumstances, that finding is not clearly

erroneous. 

We also reject Christy's pro se argument that the district court

erred in allowing the government to seek the ACCA enhancement. See United

States v. Rush, 840 F.2d 574, 578 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 487

U.S. 1238. Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000714560
<NAME> USAIR, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         653,893
<SECURITIES>                                   631,114
<RECEIVABLES>                                  417,097<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                    217,535
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,044,030
<PP&E>                                       6,177,189
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,377,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,289,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,944,345
<BONDS>                                      2,624,801
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (177,489)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,289,051
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,657,269
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,362,845
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             213,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                149,125
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,440
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            133,685
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   133,685
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are presented net of allowances.
<F2>EPS calculations are not relevant because USAir, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of USAir Group, Inc.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

d0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138719

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138719 COA: 289388 Saginaw CC: 07-029456-FH; MARQUEST FREDELL HENDER SON, 07-029453-FH Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 9, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[No. 38178-4-I.

Division One.

August 4, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ricky C. Moore, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 94-1-01657-6, Anita Louise Farris, J., entered March 6, 1997. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Exhibit 10.60

BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC.

 

2014 Inducement Plan (the “Plan”)

 

STOCK OPTIONS AGREEMENT

 

 

Unless otherwise defined herein, the terms defined in the Plan shall have the same defined meanings in this Stock Options Agreement.

 

 


	
I.
	
NOTICE OF STOCK OPTION GRANT




 

You have been granted an Option to purchase Shares of the Company (the “Option Shares”), subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan and this Stock Options Agreement, as follows:

 


		
	
Grant Number:
	
 

	
Grant Date:
	
 

	
Exercise Price per Share:
	
 

	
Total Number of Shares Granted:
	
 

	
Type of Option:
	
 

	
Term/Expiration Date:
	
See below.




 

 

Vesting Schedule:

Subject to accelerated vesting as set forth in the Plan, this Option may be exercised, in whole or in part, in accordance with the following schedule, conditioned on your Continuous Service to the Company on such dates:

 

6/48ths of the Option Shares shall vest upon your completion of six months of Continuous Service following the Grant Date (the “Initial Vesting Date”).

 

1/48 of the Option Shares shall vest upon your completion of each additional month of Continuous Service following the Initial Vesting Date. 

 

The Option expires 10 years after the Grant Date, subject to earlier termination as set forth in the Plan.

 

 

 

 

1

BMRN/36814.v2
Exhibit 10.43


 


February 25, 2004


 


Laura Lauman,


Co-Manager, Applied Biosystems/ MDS SCIEX 


and


Vice President of Discovery Proteomics and Small Molecule Business,
Applied Biosystems


850 Lincoln Centre Drive


Foster City, California 94404


 


Re:            Extension
of Term of Service and Support Agreement


 


Dear Laura:


 


As you know, Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. (“Ciphergen”) and Applied
Biosystems/MDS SCIEX (the “Joint Venture”) entered into a Service and Support
Agreement, dated April 2, 2001 (the “Original Agreement”) and a letter
amendment dated August 29, 2003 (the “August Letter Amendment;” and the
Original Agreement together with the August Letter Amendment, the “Current
Agreement”). 


 


The purpose of this letter is to confirm the agreement by and between
Ciphergen and the Joint Venture to extend the term of the Current Agreement for
an additional period through February 28, 2006 (the “Extension Period”). All
other terms and conditions of the Current Agreement shall continue in full
force and effect.  


 


For clarity, during such Extension Period, Ciphergen (1) shall sell the
PCI-1000 SELDI ProteinChip® Interface (the “Interface”) only in conjunction
with the Joint Venture’s QSTAR® MS Instrument Systems and (2) shall not offer
such Interface for sale in conjunction with the Waters-Micromass QTOF line of
products.


 


As the duly authorized representative, please indicate the agreement of
Applied Biosystems/ MDS SCIEX to the foregoing by signing both copies of this
letter in the space provided below and returning one copy of this letter to me.


 


Best regards,


 


/s/ Martin Verhoef


Martin Verhoef


President, Biosystems Division


 


 


Accepted and Agreed: 


 


Applied Biosystems/MDS SCIEX


 


 


By:             /s/
Laura Lauman 


Name:             Laura
Lauman


Title:               Co-Manager


Date:              3/10/04
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Coastal Plain Soil, Water and Plant Conservation Research: Florence, SC
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Mission
                    Outreach
                        Activities for studentsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Florence, South Carolina Coastal Plain Soil, Water and Plant Conservation Research





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar Outreach at NCA&T September 2022 (Video)   ARS News Articles  USDA's Agricultural Research Service Honors Scientists of the YearApr 09, 2019USDA Study Hints at Possible Links between Soil Characteristics and Stroke RiskAug 22, 2013USDA Patents Method to Reduce Ammonia EmissionsNov 01, 2012ARS Scientists Honored for Technology Transfer EffortsJun 08, 2010Reducing Nitrate Discharge to Downstream EcosystemsJan 27, 2009Wastewater Irrigation Effective on Bermudagrass HayJan 22, 2009Making the Most of ManureOct 01, 2008Mining Manure for PhosphorusFeb 29, 2008Bringing Wetlands to the FarmAug 21, 2006"Green" Catalyst Takes on Hormones in WastewaterJun 29, 2006ARS Scientists Collaborate to Increase Irrigation AccuracyOct 07, 2005


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit  11

                       BIOGEN, INC. and SUBSIDIARIES
                     Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                (unaudited)
                 (in thousands, except per share amounts)


                                         Three Months         Nine Months
                                        Ended Sept. 30,     Ended Sept. 30,
                                        1996      1995      1996      1995
Primary earnings per share

Weighted average number of 
  shares outstanding. . . . . . . . . 71,594    67,900    71,403   66,945

Shares deemed outstanding from
  the assumed exercise of stock
  options and warrants. . . . . . . .  2,976      5,540       992    5,011
                                      -------   -------   -------  -------
  Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  74,570    73,440    72,395   71,956
                                      =======   =======   =======  =======

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $45,052  $ 1,128    $32,301 $ 4,676
                                      =======   =======   =======  =======
Primary earnings per
  share of common stock . . . . . . . $ 0.60   $  0.02   $   0.45 $  0.06
                                      =======   =======   =======  =======

Fully diluted earnings per share (a)

Weighted average number of
  shares outstanding. . . . . . . . .  71,594    67,900    71,403   66,945

Shares deemed outstanding from
  the assumed exercise of stock
  options and warrants. . . . . . . .   4,466     6,720     1,489    5,729
                                      -------   -------   -------  -------
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  76,060    74,620    72,892   72,674
                                      =======   =======   =======  =======

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $45,052  $ 1,128  $  32,301 $  4,676
                                      =======   =======   =======  =======

Fully diluted earnings
  per share of common stock . . . . . $ 0.59  $  0.02     $ 0.44  $  0.06
                                      =======   =======   =======  =======


(a)  This calculation is submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item
     601 (b) (11) although not required by Footnote 2 to Paragraph 14 of
     APB Opinion No. 15 because it results in dilution of less than 3%.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 20, 2017

No. 04-15-00120-CV

UNIVERSITY OF INCARNATE WORD and Christopher Carter,

Appellants

v.

Valerie REDUS, Individually, and Robert M. Redus, Individually and as Administrator of the 

Estate of Robert Cameron Redus,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-07249

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On May 12, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court remanded this appeal for resolution of 

Appellant’s interlocutory appeal. Appellant has filed a motion to set briefing schedule on 

remand. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. 

We ORDER Appellant to file its brief on or before August 9, 2017. Appellees’ brief will 

be due twenty days after appellant files its brief.

It is so ORDERED on July 20, 2017.

 PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: __________________________________

 Luz Estrada

 Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 10.48


 


March 12, 2004


 


Mr. John Tatta


20 Bay Colony Point


Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308


 


Dear John,


 


Reference is hereby made to that certain Consulting Agreement dated
January 27, 2001 by and between Cablevision Systems Corporation
(“Cablevision”) and you (“the Consulting Agreement”).


 


Please acknowledge below your agreement to extend the Consulting
Agreement for an additional three years on all of the same terms and
conditions.  Please note, however, that
in light of the new recently adopted New York Stock Exchange rules,
Section 2 of the Consulting Agreement shall be considered modified such
that, if you are elected to the Cablevision Board of Directors, Cablevision
shall not be required to appoint you to, or as Chair of, any specific Committees
of the Board.


 


We continue to appreciate your ongoing service to Cablevision as both a
director and valuable consultant of the company.


 


	
   

  	
  Sincerely,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ James L. Dolan

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  James L. Dolan

  
	
   

  	
  President, Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ John Tatta

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  John Tatta
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 11-691V

Filed: March 28, 2013

Not for Publication

*************************************

TIMOTHY MATTHEWS, *

 *

Petitioner, * Attorneys’ Fees & Costs Decision

v. * Based on Stipulation of Fact

 *

SECRETARY OF HEALTH *

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

 Respondent. *

*

*************************************

Diana L. Stadelnikas, Sarasota, FL, for petitioner.

Traci R. Patton, Washington, DC, for respondent.

MILLMAN, Special Master

DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

On March 28, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation of fact in which they agreed on an 

appropriate amount for attorneys’ fees and costs in this case. 

In accordance with the General Order #9 requirement, petitioner’s counsel asserts that 

petitioner did not incur any costs in pursuit of his petition.

On March 22, 2013, petitioner informally provided respondent with a draft Application for 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. During informal discussions, respondent raised objections to certain 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master's action in this

case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal 

Claims's website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made 

available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is 

privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review, 

agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall 

redact such material from public access.
2

items. Based on these objections, petitioner now amends his request for attorneys’ fees and costs 

and requests $20,176.93 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Respondent does not object to the reduced 

amount. The undersigned finds this amount to be reasonable. Accordingly, the court awards

$20,176.93, representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs. The award shall be in the 

form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Maglio Christopher & Toale, P.A. in the amount 

of $20,176.93.

In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the 

court is directed to enter judgment herewith.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2013 /s/ Laura D. Millman 

 Laura D. Millman

Special Master

 

2

Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party=s filing a notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         June 16, 2021.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on June 8, 2021, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 706 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-99, CP2021-102.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2021-12650 Filed 6-15-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### PALMER, Appellant, v. PALMER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 11, 1898.)

Action by Mariline Palmer against Albert M. Palmer.

R. Foster, for appellant.

A. J. Dittenhoofer, for respondent.

No opinion. Order reducing alimony reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with $10 costs, upon the authority of Walker v. Walker (decided in the court of appeals March 1, 1898) 49 N. E. 663.