alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Appellant, v Colgate-Palmolive Company, Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[949 NYS2d 14]

Interim orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J), entered November 10, 2011, which, inter alia, granted defendant Colgate-Palmolive Company’s motion to stay this action, and stayed plaintiffs motion to compel discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly stayed this action pending the resolution of an appeal in a related action among the parties in Massachusetts *(see*CPLR 2201; *Asher v Abbott Labs.,*307 AD2d 211 [2003]). The issues, relief sought, and parties in the two actions are substantially identical *(see id.).*Plaintiffs argument that the Massachusetts action is no longer pending because it was dismissed is unavailing, since an appeal was taken from the order of dismissal *(see Rael Automatic Sprinkler Co. v Solow Dev. Corp.,*58 AD2d 600 [1977]; *D’Aprile v Blythe,*53 AD2d 1059, 1060 [1976]). The duplication of effort, waste of judicial resources, and possibility of inconsistent rulings in the absence of a stay outweigh any prejudice to plaintiff resulting from the fact that defense counsel is located in New York (see *Asher,*307 AD2d at 212), particularly since the materials that may be relevant to whether plaintiff is entitled to independent counsel, i.e., liability insurance policies, correspondence from the insurance companies, and the insurance claims files, and insurance company witnesses, are located in Massachusetts. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Román, JJ.
**Exhibit21.1**

**SUBSIDIARIES OFMEDICSIGHT, INC.**
| Name of Subsidiary                   | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Organization** |
|--------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------|
|                                 |       |                             |
| Medicsight PLC                       |       | England and Wales                |
| Medicsight  Nominees Limited         |       | England and Wales                |
| Medicexchange,  Inc                  |       | Delaware, U.S.A.                 |
| Medicexchange  PLC                   |       | England and Wales                |
| Medicexchange UK  Limited            |       | England and Wales                |
| Medicexchange  International Limited |       | Gibraltar                        |
| Medicexchange  China                 |       | China                            |
| Medicexchange  Pty                   |       | Australia                        |
| Medicsight Asset  Management Limited |       | England and Wales                |
| Medicsight USA,  Inc                 |       | Nashville, U.S.A.                |
| Medicsight  (International) Limited  |       | Gibraltar                        |
| Medicsight KK                        |       | Japan                            |
| Medicsight  Finance Limited          |       | England and Wales                |
| Chardy Limited                       |       | England and Wales                |
| HTTP Tech, Inc.                      |       | New York, U.S.A.                 |
| Medical Vision  Systems, Inc.        |       | Delaware, U.S.A.                 |

 

E-1

----
Document

Exhibit 10.2


Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC


August 4, 2021


Cheniere Marketing International LLP
3rd Floor, The Zig Zag Building
70 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6SQ, United Kingdom
Attn: Commercial Operations


Re:       Letter Agreement regarding the Base SPA (“Letter Agreement”)


Dear Sir or Madam:


The Parties have entered into that certain Amended and Restated LNG Sale and Purchase Agreement (FOB) dated August 5, 2014 between Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC and Cheniere Marketing International LLP (as assignee of Cheniere Marketing, LLC) (as amended and assigned, the “Base SPA”).  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Base SPA.  This Letter Agreement amends and restates that certain Letter Agreement, dated February 23, 2021, entered into between the Parties and sets forth the terms of certain sales and purchases of LNG under the Base SPA.


The Parties hereby agree that, notwithstanding Section 9.2 and subject to Section 14 of the Base SPA, the FPC (expressed in USD per MMBtu) applicable to the following number of cargoes shall equal USD one decimal ninety-six  per MMBtu (US$1.96/MMBtu):


(a)up to three (3) cargoes scheduled for delivery in the 2021 Contract Year;


(b)up to nine (9) or ten (10) cargoes scheduled for delivery in the 2022 Contract Year, such number to be nominated by Buyer during the ADP process for the 2022 Contract Year;


(c)up to fourteen (14) or fifteen (15) cargoes scheduled for delivery in each of the 2023, 2024 and 2025 Contract Years, such number to be nominated by Buyer for each such Contract Year during the ADP process for the relevant Contract Year; 


(d) up to twelve (12) or thirteen (13) cargoes scheduled for delivery in the 2026 Contract Year, such number to be nominated by Buyer during the ADP process for the 2026 Contract Year; and


(e)up to nine (9) or ten (10) cargoes scheduled for delivery in the 2027 Contract Year, such number to be nominated by Buyer during the ADP process for the 2027 Contract Year




Please indicate Buyer’s agreement with the terms of this Letter Agreement by executing a copy of this Letter Agreement where indicated below and returning it to Seller. 
700 Milam Street, Suite 1900, Houston, Texas 77002
+1 713-375-5000








Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC






Sincerely,


Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC


						
	By:	/s/ Zach Davis
		Zach Davis
		Chief Financial Officer






Accepted and Agreed:
												
	Cheniere Marketing International LLP	
	acting by its managing member, Cheniere Marketing, LLC
				
	By:	/s/ Anatol Feygin	
		Anatol Feygin		
		Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer


700 Milam Street, Suite 1900, Houston, Texas 77002
+1 713-375-5000
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

KEVIN TRUDEAU,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 03-C-3904

Hon. Robert W. Gettleman

NOTICE OF MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on Wednesday, October 16, 2013, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon 

thereafter as counsel may be heard, the undersigned shall appear before the Honorable Robert W. 

Gettleman, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, or 

such other judge as may be sitting in his place in Courtroom 1703, 219 S. Dearborn Street, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, and shall present the attached Receiver’s Motion for Leave to File 

Receiver’s Reply in Support of the Imposition of Coercive Sanctions, a copy of which is 

hereby served upon you.

Dated: October 15, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

ROBB EVANS & ASSOCIATES LLC, 

RECEIVER

By: /s/ Blair Zanzig 

(One of Its Attorneys)

Blair R. Zanzig (No. 6273293)

John F. Hiltz (No. 6289744)

Kathy Wantuch (No. 6294034)

HILTZ WANTUCH & ZANZIG LLC

53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 205

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: 312.566.9008

Fax: 312.566.9015

Counsel for Robb Evans & Associates, Receiver

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 770 Filed: 10/15/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:13803
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Blair R. Zanzig, an attorney, hereby certify that, on the 15th day of October, 2013, I 

caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Motion to be served through the 

Court’s Electronic Case Filing System on the following:

Kimball Richard Anderson

kanderson@winston.com

Thomas Lee Kirsch, II

tkirsch@winston.com

Katherine E. Rohlf

kcroswell@winston.com

Michael Mora 

mmora@ftc.gov

Jonathan Cohen

Jcohen2@ftc.gov

Amanda B. Kostner 

akostner@ftc.gov

David O’Toole

dotoole@ftc.gov

/s/ Blair R. Zanzig

Case: 1:03-cv-03904 Document #: 770 Filed: 10/15/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:13804
Document

Exhibit 10.2



Confidential Material Omitted – To be filed separately with the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request. Double asterisks denote omissions.




2021 Performance Share Award Program
This Schedule A is part of, and subject to the terms and conditions of, an Award Agreement evidencing this Award of Performance Shares. The Award Agreement, including this Schedule A, is subject to the terms and conditions of the Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. 2017 Incentive Stock Plan, as amended.


•The performance measures will be based on the relative TSR payout table shown below in the Objectives section that carries a 50% weighting added to the results of an additional goal (to be determined) that will carry a 50% weighting.  Actual results will be interpolated within the ranges in the associated tables.  


•If RYAM’s absolute three-year TSR is negative, payouts for the TSR component would be capped at 100% of target (weighted 50%) unless RYAM’s relative TSR is above the 75th percentile of the peer group at which time the cap would become 150% of target (weighted 50%); however, payouts under the additional metric would be measured and scored separately.


•The Compensation Committee will have discretion as allowed for in the Equity Incentive Plan to consider special items and make appropriate adjustments at the end of each measurement period.




Objectives and Payout Ranges




Objective 1:  Adjusted HPC EBITDA Margin Improvement FY2023 (vs 2020 Actual) (50% Weight)


												
		Threshold
	Target
	Maximum

	EBITDA Margin Improvement versus 2020 Results of [**]%
	[**]
	[**]
	[**]

	Payout Range
	30%
	100%
	200%























 



Exhibit 10.2





Objective 2:  Relative TSR (50% Weight)										
			
		Relative Performance
	Payout
	
	Maximum
	75P
	200%
	
	Target
	50P
	100%
	
	Threshold
	25P
	30%
	






Peer Group


The S&P SmallCap 600 Capped Materials Index will be used for peer group comparison.  Total Shareholder Return (“TSR”) measurement period will be March 1st through February 28th of the three-year program period. 


Dividend Equivalents


Dividend equivalents and interest will be paid in cash on the number of RYAM shares of stock earned under the Program.


Dividend equivalents and interest will be calculated by taking the dividends paid on one share of RYAM stock during the performance period (March 1, 2021 – February 28, 2024) times the number of shares of stock awarded at the end of the period. Interest on such dividends will be earned at a rate equal to the prime rate as reported in the Wall Street Journal, adjusted and compounded annually; from the date such cash dividends were paid by the Company.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
ELIZABETH SOMERS, Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERA NS AFFAIRS, Respondent

______________________

2018

- 1427

______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. CH

- 1221

- 16

- 0259 -W- 1.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M ICHAEL L EE V OGELSANG
, J R

. , The Em ployment Law Group, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner.

D AVID P EHLKE , Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washin gton, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by
R EGINALD T HOMAS B LADES
, J R
., R OBERT E DWARD K IRSCHMAN
, J R ., J OSEPH H. H UNT

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (L OURIE
, B RYSON
, and W ALLACH
, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

November 9, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
Case: 1:01-cv-07770 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/09/01 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cv-07770 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/09/01 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
Case: 1:01-cv-07770 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/09/01 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
Case: 1:01-cv-07770 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/09/01 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
Case: 1:01-cv-07770 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/09/01 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
Case: 1:01-cv-07770 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/09/01 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
Case: 1:01-cv-07770 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/09/01 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
Case: 1:01-cv-07770 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/09/01 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8
Case 1:03-cv-07255 Document 10 Filed 01/29/04 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-07255 Document 10 Filed 01/29/04 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-07255 Document 10 Filed 01/29/04 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-07255 Document 10 Filed 01/29/04 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-07255 Document 10 Filed 01/29/04 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-07255 Document 10 Filed 01/29/04 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-07255 Document 10 Filed 01/29/04 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-07255 Document 10 Filed 01/29/04 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-07255 Document 10 Filed 01/29/04 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-07255 Document 10 Filed 01/29/04 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:03-cv-07255 Document 10 Filed 01/29/04 Page 11 of 11
#### Susan Kelly, Appellant, v City of New York, Respon*782dent.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated December 7, 1984, as, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination denying her motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of her compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-e.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant’s answer, dated November 22, 1978, admits that the plaintiff complied with General Municipal Law § 50-e by serving the City of New York with a timely notice of claim. This admission was allegedly made in reliance upon an affidavit of service furnished by the plaintiff to the defendant as proof of timely service. The case proceeded through discovery, was placed on the Trial Calendar, and resulted in a settlement agreement. By letter dated June 3, 1982, the defendant informed the plaintiff that it would not settle since the Comptroller’s office had no record of being served with a notice of claim. In its affirmation in opposition to the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-e, the defendant presented an affidavit from the plaintiff’s alleged process server stating that the signature on the affidavit of service furnished by the plaintiff to defendant was not his, and that he had never served the corresponding notice of claim upon the defendant.

Special Term held that the process server’s affidavit, disputing the validity of the affidavit of service furnished by the plaintiff, raised issues of fact which precluded a summary determination. Upon reargument, Special Term adhered to its prior determination.

Although the defendant’s answer failed to plead a defense of lack of notice and the defendant did not move to amend its answer, Special Term did not err in considering the evidence presented by the defendant in support of a defense of failure to comply with General Municipal Law § 50-e *(see, Curry v MacKenzie,*239 NY 267; *Rizzi v Sussman,*9 AD2d 961). Similarly, because the record does not establish that the plaintiff lacked knowledge or the means to obtain knowledge of the truth as to the facts comprising that defense, further exploration of facts at trial is required *(see, Quaglia v Incorporated Vil. of Munsey Park,*54 AD2d 434, *affd*44 NY2d 772). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

) Case No. 02 CR 398

v. )

) Judge Joan H. Lefkow

RANDY VELLEFF )

ORDER

Defendant Randy Velleff’s motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 (dkt.199) is denied. See Statement.

STATEMENT

On July 10, 2003, Randy Velleff was found guilty of multiple robbery, narcotic, and 

weapon offenses after a jury trial. On April 13, 2004, the court imposed a sentence of 430 

months’ imprisonment, including a mandatory consecutive 60 months for the weapons offense 

(18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). (See dkt. 105 at 2.) In calculating Velleff’s Sentencing Guidelines range, 

the court found that Velleff’s offense level was 37 because of his status as a career offender 

under USSG § 4B1.1. As a career offender, Velleff’s criminal history category was VI. A 

combined offense level of 37 and a criminal history category of VI yielded a Guidelines range of 

360 months-to-life imprisonment. After the Supreme Court declared the Sentencing Guidelines 

advisory only, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621 

(2005), the Seventh Circuit vacated this court’s judgment and remanded for reconsideration of 

the sentence. On September 26, 2007, this court reduced Velleff’s sentence to 300 months 

including the mandatory consecutive 60 months for the weapons offense. Now, Velleff seeks a 

further reduced sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the 

Sentencing Guidelines. (See dkt. 199.) 

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), a reduction in sentence is permitted only when the 

sentence was based on a sentencing range subsequently lowered and such a reduction is 

consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Dillon v.

United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2691, 177 L. Ed. 2d 271 (2010). A reduction 

in a defendant’s term of imprisonment is not authorized and not consistent with the policy 

statement under USSG § 1B1.10 if the applicable amendment “does not have the effect of 

lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range because of the operation of another 

guideline or statutory provision.” USSG. § 1B1.10, cmt. n.1(A). Here, Velleff is not eligible for a 

reduction, as his adjusted offense level at both sentencing proceedings was determined by his 

status as a career offender, not the drug quantity tables found in USSG §§ 2D1.1 and 2D1.11. 

See United States v. Griffin, 652 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, § 3582(c)(1) and 

Amendment 782 do not have the effect of lowering Velleff’s Guidelines range and his motion 

must be denied. 

1
Dated: July 15, 2016 _____________________________

U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow

2
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130005 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130005 

 COA: 254952 

Saginaw CC: 03-022792-FH 

TWYMAN MARK BURNELL, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 10, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0221 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 27, 2006 

Clerk
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
 Crop Production Systems Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About CPSRU
                        CPSRU Mission StatementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Crop Production Systems Research People





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Unit Publication Lists with PDFs
- Contact Information
- Publications
- Publications - PDF Links
- Research Projects

Heather Lee Tyler    Research Microbiologist  **Dr. Heather Tyler****Research Microbiologist Crop Production Systems Research Unit 141 Experiment Station Road PO Box 350 Stoneville, MS  38776 Office: 662.686.3628 FAX:    662.686.5422 Email:  Heather.Tyler@usda.gov**


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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>       5
<CIK>     0001000897
<NAME>  AZUREL LTD.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                        414,731
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,985,232
<ALLOWANCES>                                   60,000
<INVENTORY>                                 1,882,807
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            5,069,098
<PP&E>                                      1,462,580
<DEPRECIATION>                                224,789
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              9,839,626
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       3,398,161
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        5,294
<OTHER-SE>                                  4,812,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                9,839,626
<SALES>                                    12,481,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           12,481,556
<CGS>                                       8,607,759
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              12,504,749
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            475,310
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (498,503)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (498,503)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (498,503)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0





</TABLE>