alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.14

REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP  SUMMARY OF  DIRECTOR COMENSATION ARRANGMENTS

Directors who are employees of Regal Entertainment Group or its subsidiaries receive no additional cash or equity compensation for service on the Regal
Entertainment Group Board of Directors. All Directors are reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses related to attendance at Board of Director and Board of Director
committee meetings. Directors who are not employees of Regal Entertainment Group also receive an annual cash retainer for Board of Director service of $40,000.

Directors
do not receive additional cash or equity compensation for service on committees of Regal Entertainment Group's Board of Directors.



QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Eugene Williams, Petitioner, v Eugene S. LeFevre, as Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Application, pursuant to CPLR 7002 (b) (2) for writ of habeas corpus denied *(see, People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent,*67 AD2d 587, *affd*50 NY2d 901). Casey, J. P., Weiss, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
# C_2019164EN.01001101.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Poland) lodged on 15 January 2019 — Corporis Sp. z o.o., established in Bielsko-Biała v Gefion Insurance A/S, established in Copenhagen

(Case C-25/19)

(2019/C 164/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Corporis Sp. z o.o., established in Bielsko-Biała

Defendant: Gefion Insurance A/S, established in Copenhagen

Question referred

Should Article 152(1) and (2), in conjunction with Article 151, of Directive 2009/138/EC (1) and recital 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (2) be interpreted as meaning that the representation of a non-life insurance undertaking by an appointed representative includes the receipt of a document which initiates court proceedings for damages in respect of a road traffic accident?

---

(1)  Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (OJ 2009 L 335, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph DODD, also known as Shakespeare, Appellant.

No. 08-1494.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 3, 2008.

Filed: Dec. 8, 2008.

Clifford R. Cronk, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Davenport, IA, for Appellee.

Matthew Charles McDermott, Mark E. Weinhardt, Belin & Lamson, Des Moines, IA, for Appellant.

Joseph Dodd, Oxford, WI, pro se.

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Dodd appeals the district court’s1 denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. We affirm.

Dodd was convicted in May 2006, following a jury trial, of conspiring to distribute cocaine base. This court affirmed the conviction. *See United States v. Dodd,*473 F.3d 873, 875-76 (8th Cir.2007). With his new-trial motion, Dodd submitted a letter and affidavit from his brother, Anthony Dodd (Anthony), in which Anthony stated that he and Dodd look so much alike that people think they are twins, although they are not. Anthony further stated that he was the one present during a controlled drug buy, rather than Dodd, and that witnesses were mistaken when they testified about events at the location of the controlled buy involving Dodd, as Anthony was the one involved and Dodd was not present.

*17The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dodd’s motion. *See United States v. Duke,*255 F.3d 656, 659 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review; requirements to justify new trial under Rule 33). First, the district court gave valid reasons for finding the assertions in Anthony’s affidavit to be “highly suspect”: he was serving a life sentence with nothing to lose, and his assertions could help his brother. *See United States v. Grey Bear,*116 F.3d 349, 350 (8th Cir.1997) (it is district court’s job to decide whether newly discovered evidence is credible). Second, the affidavit is essentially impeachment evidence, *see United States v. Dogskin,*265 F.3d 682, 687 (8th Cir.2001) (impeachment testimony rarely justifies new trial based on newly discovered evidence), and we agree with the district court that there was evidence of Dodd’s guilt even without the challenged testimony that would make the possibility of acquittal unlikely, *see United States v. Womack,*191 F.3d 879, 886 (8th Cir.1999). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err in declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing. *See United States v. Baker,*479 F.3d 574, 579 (8th Cir.2007) (necessity of hearing lessened where trial judge had opportunity to observe demeanor and weigh credibility of witnesses at trial); *Dogskin,*265 F.3d at 687 (absent exceptional circumstances, new trial motion based on new evidence may be decided on affidavits without hearing).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.
#### Amy Kantor, Appellant, v 75 Worth Street, LLC, et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 245]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered October 28, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss the claims for lost profits, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The allegations in the complaint and the supporting materials do not establish that plaintiff’s lost profits “were within the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into and are capable of measurement with reasonable certainty” *(Ashland Mgt. v Janien,*82 NY2d 395, 403 [1993]). Unlike the contract in *Ashland,*nothing in the record indicates that the parties’ agreement contemplated, in the event of defendants’ breach, that defendants would be liable for plaintiffs failure to realize profits from her new veterinary practice. Moreover, plaintiffs claim for lost profits is too speculative to sustain *719a cause of action *(id.).*Plaintiff argues that a similarly-situated veterinary business quantifies her lost profits with reasonable certainty. However, aside from the other veterinary business occupying the same space that plaintiff intended to occupy, the record demonstrates no other similarities between the existing business and plaintiffs intended practice. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Executive Committee hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business as follows:

# TIME AND DATE: 

Tuesday, June 29, 2021 from 1:00-2:00 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE: 

This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation.

# STATUS: 

Open

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Committee Chair's opening remarks; approval of Executive Committee minutes of April 24, 2021; and discuss issues and topics for an agenda of the NSB meeting scheduled for August 3-4, 2021.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

                        Point of contact for this meeting is: Nirmala Kannankutty, 703/292-8000. To listen to this teleconference, members of the public must send an email to                         *nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov*                         at least 24 hours prior to the teleconference. The National Science Board Office will send requesters a toll-free dial-in number. Meeting information and updates may be found at                         *http://www.nsf.gov/​nsb/​notices/​.jsp.*                         Please refer to the National Science Board website at                         *www.nsf.gov/​nsb*                         for general information.                    

Chris Blair,

Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.

[FR Doc. 2021-13642 Filed 6-22-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
**Exhibit 23.2** **CONSENT    OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration    statement    No. 333-114935    on    Form S-8    of Alion Science and Technology Corporation of our report dated    January 31, 2006, except as to Note 21, which is as of    March 12, 2008, with respect to the consolidated statements    of operations, redeemable common stock and accumulated deficit,    and cash flows of Alion Science and Technology Corporation and    subsidiaries for year ended September 30, 2005, and the    related consolidated financial statement schedule for the year    ended September 30, 2005, which report appears in the    September 30, 2007 annual report on    Form 10-K/A    of Alion Science and Technology Corporation.     Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to    the restatement of the consolidated financial statements for the    year ended September 30, 2005. /s/  KPMG    LLP     Chicago, Illinois    March 12, 2008
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
 Bio-oils Research: Peoria, IL
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NCAUR Homepage
                    BOR-NCAUR pilot plant facilities
                        Seed pressing and refining equipment
                                    Oil synthesis equipment
                                    Other equipmentSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area Peoria, Illinois National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research Bio-oils Research Docs







Polishing filter units (2)headline bar Polishing filter units


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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6467

KIMBERLY RENEE POOLE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LEATH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (0:03-cv-03499-RBH) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 31, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Isaac Diggs, Chief Attorney, DIGGS, DIGGS & AXELROD, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kimberly Renee Poole seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 31, 2007. Poole’s counsel filed the notice of appeal on March 27, 2007. Because Poole failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the 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.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 21


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                   Amnicor, Inc.
                                                      Nevada
                                                        |
                                                        |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>               <C>                 <C>                <C>            <C>          <C>            <C>           <C>
      |             |                 |                 |               |             |               |               |
Masonry Supply Tyree Holding  Baker's Pride, Inc. Tulare Holdings,  Epic Sports  Environmental  Amnicor Other Amnicor Contract
Holding Corp.      Corp.          (Delaware)           Inc.        International  Holding Corp.  Assets, Inc.  Administrators, Inc.
 (Delaware)     (Delaware)             |            (Delaware)     Inc. (Nevada)  (Delaware)     (Delaware)      (Delaware)
      |              |                 |                  |                            |
      |              |                 |                  |                            |
      |              |  -------------------------------   |                            |
Imperia Masonry      |  Jefferson Street    Mt Pleasant   |                       Environmental
 Supply Corp.        |   Bakery, Inc.      Bakery, Inc.   |                      Quality Services,
 (Delaware)          |    (Delaware)        (Delaware)    |                       Inc. (Delaware)
                     |                                    |
                     |                                    |
 ---------------------------------------------------      |
 Tyree Service     Tyree Equipment      Tyree          Tulare Frozen
 Corp. (Delaware)  Corp. (Delaware)  Environmental      Foods, LLC.
                                     Corp. (Delaware)   (California)

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 31

                         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 302

I, Russell A. Cronin, Jr., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of National City Auto
Receivables Trust 2002-A;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
does not contain any untrue 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 as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer under
the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and
the annual compliance review required under that agreement, and except as
disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that
agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with the specified servicing standards based upon the report provided
by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance
with the specified servicing standards identified in the Report of Management,
as generally set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that
is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: Wilmington Trust Company,
Bank of New York.

Date: March 31, 2006

By: /s/ Russell A. Cronin, Jr.
----------------------------------

Russell A. Cronin, Jr.
Senior Vice President
National City Bank
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM METRIKA
SYSTEMS CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL
3, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  APR-03-1999
<CASH>                                                 13,295
<SECURITIES>                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          25,339
<ALLOWANCES>                                            5,682
<INVENTORY>                                            11,505
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       64,666
<PP&E>                                                 16,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                          5,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        102,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  28,822
<BONDS>                                                 3,008
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                   83
<OTHER-SE>                                             64,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          102,239
<SALES>                                                18,947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       18,947
<CGS>                                                  10,798
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          10,798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        1,564
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          149
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        107
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         2,123
<INCOME-TAX>                                              829
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     1,294
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                            1,294
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.17
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7818

HAZEL STOUDEMIRE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

A. J. PADULA, Warden Lee Correctional Institution, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(8:07-cv-03272-HFF) 

Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 29, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Hazel Stoudemire, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Hazel Stoudemire seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Stoudemire has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Stoudemire’s motion 

for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the 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. 

DISMISSED