alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 450(Rev. 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case

United States District Court

Northern District of Illinois

Eastern Division

MICHELE RUSIN JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v. Case Number: 03 C 5767

UNITED AIRLINES, et al

G Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury rendered its verdict.

O Decision by Court. This action came to hearing before the Court. The issues have

been heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that summary judgment is entered in favor of

defendant and against plaintiff, Michele Rusin. Plaintiff takes nothing from the defendants.

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court

Date: 8/30/2005 /s/ Donald Walker, Deputy Clerk
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 42 Filed: 10/14/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:350
#### H. Muehlstein & Co., Inc., Appellant, v Fred Sternberg, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin F. Klein, J.), entered September 11, 1984, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this action to recover on a personal guarantee, reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment is granted.

On September 15, 1983 the defendant, principal in Jordan Plastics, Inc. (Jordan), executed a guarantee in favor of the plaintiff for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to extend credit to Jordan for materials that were to be sold and delivered to Jordan. Defendant agreed to pay plaintiff “promptly on demand *636all such amounts which are not paid by Customer when due, together with all expenses of collection and reasonable counsel fees incurred by [plaintiff].” Defendant further acknowledged that the guarantee was “absolute, unconditional and continuing”. The last sentence of the guarantee, added by defendant, read as follows: “This guarantee shall be limited to one hundred thousand ($100,000.00) and will expire on December 31,1983.”

Between October 5 and 18,1983, plaintiff delivered to Jordan four shipments whose aggregate agreed price was $64,195.92, no part of which was paid by Jordan.

Following written and telephonic communications between plaintiff and defendant, the defendant sent four checks on behalf of Jordan, which he signed. The first was dated December 16, 1983, and the other three were dated, respectively, January 16, 23 and 30, 1984. All were returned for insufficient funds. This action on the guarantee followed.

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied by Special Term in the order appealed from, apparently on the view that a factual question was presented as to whether a demand was made on the defendant prior to December 31, 1983. We perceive no factual issue that justifies denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and accordingly reverse and grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Preliminarily, we do not believe that the last sentence of the guarantee quoted above is correctly interpreted as terminating defendant’s liability on the guarantee for obligations incurred by Jordan prior to December 31, 1983 in the absence of a demand on the defendant prior to that date. We construe that sentence to mean only that the defendant’s guarantee would not extend to obligations incurred by Jordan for shipments received by that company after December 31, 1983. Moreover, the fact that defendant sent a check to plaintiff dated December 16,1983 following telephone and telex communications clearly establishes that demand for payment was made prior to December 31, 1983. We have considered defendant’s other contentions and deem them to be totally without merit. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Woods, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 588]

Motion for writ of error coram nobis denied. Present — Centra, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
Document

Exhibit 10.7



Director Compensation 
The compensation program for non-employee Directors is shown in the following table: 
						
	Compensation Element	Non-Employee Director Compensation(1)

	Board Chairman Annual Retainer	$125,000
	Board Member Annual Retainer 
(other than Board Chairman)	$70,000
	Committee Chairman Annual Retainer	$25,000 Audit Committee
$15,000 all other Committees(2)

	Technology Liaison Annual Retainer	$10,000 
	Share-based Compensation	Fair value on the date of the respective awards is used to determine the number of Restricted Stock Units ("RSUs") awarded.
An annual award of $110,000 in RSUs following the Annual Shareholder Meeting. $110,000 in RSUs if joining the Board within six months after the prior Annual Shareholder Meeting, $55,000 in RSUs if joining more than six months after the prior Annual Shareholder Meeting but before the next Annual Shareholder Meeting.
All awards have a 1-year vesting period.
	Basic Group Term Life Insurance	Premium for $10,000 face amount
	Business Travel Accident Insurance	Premium for $100,000 coverage


(1)  Annual retainer fees are paid following the Annual Shareholder Meeting each year. The annual retainer fees are prorated to the extent that a non-employee Director joins the Board after the Annual Shareholder Meeting. Non-employee Directors may elect to defer cash compensation into RSUs. 
(2)  The Executive Committee Chair is not paid an Annual Retainer.


Last Revision Date:  May 20, 2021
#### CANEPI, Respondent, v. GROSS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Joseph Canepi, Jr., against Fred E. Gross.

No opinion. Judgment of the City Court of Yonkers affirmed with costs.
#### MANNING, Appellant, v. ROTHSTEIN, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

September 25, 1907.)

Action by Julius Manning against A. Jacob Roth-stein.

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, without costs.
#### Moore *v.*The State.

*Misdemeanor.*

(Decided Jan. 17th, 1907.

42 So. Rep. 996.)

*Criminal Law; Judgment.*— In a misdemeanor case tlie sentence should show an ascertainment of the costs and the determination by the court of the number of days required to work it out, at thirty cents per day, not to exceed ten months; and a sentence ordering accused to perforin additional labor, not to exceed ten months, at eighty-three cents per day, until the costs are satisfied, is improper, but the court will do no more than to reverse for a resentence according to law.

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal-Court.

Heard before Hon. S. L. Weaver.

Emmett Moore was indicted, tried and convicted of grand larceny. He was sentenced to two years hard labor for the county, and an additional term to pay costs, the judgment entry thereon sufficiently appearing-in the opinion of the court.

No counsel marked for appellant.

Massey Wilson, Attorney General, for State. —

No brief came to the reporter.

ANDERSON, J. —

There is no bill of exceptions in this case, and the record discloses no- error of the trial judge except as to the sentence for cost. The judgment recites: “And the cost legally taxed against the defendant not being presently paid or secured, it is ordered that the said defendant perform additional hard labor for the county a sufficient number of days at the rate of. eighty-three cents per day to pay said costs, said number of days not to exceed ten months.” Section 4532 of the Gode of 1896, providing for sentence for cost, among other things, says: “And the court must determine the *67time required to work out suck costs at the rate of thirty cents per day.” There is nothing in the present record to indicate the amount of the cost, or the length of time required to work it out at 30. cents per day. True, the sentence provides that the time shall hot exceed 10 months; hut this is not sufficient. The sentence should show an ascertainment of the cost and the determination by the court of the number of days required to work it out — not to exceed ten months. — § 4532 of the Code of 1896; *Linnehan v. State,*120 Ala. 293, 25 South. 6; *Weinard v. The State,*149 Ala. 57, 42 South. 991. Again, the rate should be 30 cents per day, and not 83 cents, as by the sentence.

The judgment of the criminal court is reversed as to the sentence, and the cause is remanded for further sentence by the criminal court as indicated above.

Reversed as to sentence, and remanded.

Dowdell, Denson, and McClellan, JJ., concur.
(February 20, 1986)

#### In the Matter of Commissioner of Franklin County Department of Social Services, Respondent, v Clarence F., Appellant. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

—Levine, J.

Appeal from two orders of the Family Court of Franklin County (Plumadore, J.), entered February 4, 1984, which granted petitioners’ applications, in proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, to adjudicate respondent as the father of two children born to petitioner Brenda M.

Paternity proceedings were commenced claiming that respondent was the father of two sons born to petitioner Brenda M. on December 6, 1980 and January 30, 1982. At the filiation hearing, Brenda testified that she and respondent began living together in 1977 and maintained a relationship until 1982. Although respondent worked out of town for the last two to three years, she claimed that he visited her on weekends, that they lived together as a family and that she had no relations *878with other men for that time period. Respondent testified that although he and Brenda had a sexual relationship and slept in the same bed from 1978 through 1982, they did not actually engage in sexual intercourse after 1978 because she was not using any means of birth control. The results of human leucocyte antigen (HLA) blood tissue tests were admitted into evidence and showed that the probability of respondent’s paternity was 95.1% for the child born in 1980 and 99.95% for the child born in 1982. Family Court adjudicated respondent to be the father of the children and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. Respondent’s claim that the determination of paternity was not based upon clear and convincing evidence is not persuasive. A determination of paternity rests basically upon a resolution of the credibility of the parties *(Matter of Seeberg v Davis,*84 AD2d 262, 263). Here, Family Court credited Brenda’s testimony rather than respondent’s. That determination of the court sitting without a jury is to be accorded great weight *(supra).*Additionally, the HLA tests which were also relied upon by the court are "highly accurate on the issue of paternity” *(Matter of Karen K. v Christopher D.,*86 AD2d 633, 634).

Respondent’s contention that the periods of gestation for the children constituted substantial deviations from the norm, and therefore had to be explained by expert medical evidence, is also unavailing. Respondent did not raise this issue at the hearing and is precluded from arguing it on appeal *(see, Costikyan v Keeffe,*54 AD2d 573).

Orders affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          33,837
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,104)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,061
<PP&E>                                         306,867
<DEPRECIATION>                                (63,781)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,108,093
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          228,252
<BONDS>                                        760,201
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,074
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,315
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,108,093
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               241,010
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  207,880
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               159,847
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,850
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (174,822)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (174,822)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (174,822)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.39)


</TABLE>
# Official Journal C 49I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 049I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6313 February 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 049I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6313 February 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Food Safety Authority |
| 2020/C 49 I/01 | Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Food Safety Authority

2020/C 49 I/01

Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4208

TRACY GLENN JACKSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-00-192)

Submitted: September 28, 2001

Decided: November 5, 2001

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for

Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Tracy Glenn Jackson appeals his conviction for robbing a postal

employee of money belonging to the United States, in violation of 18

U.S.C.A. § 2114(a) (West 2000). Jackson’s counsel filed a brief

asserting that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. In addition, Jackson filed a motion to file a pro se

supplemental brief to assert claims of ineffective assistance of trial

counsel. 

After a thorough review of the trial transcript, we find that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government,

was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v.

Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). We therefore

find that the district court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. 

Jackson claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel

because, inter alia, counsel advised him to be clean-shaven for trial,

which altered his normal appearance and made him more closely

resemble the composite drawings of the robbery suspect, and failed

to interview prosecution or defense witnesses. Claims of ineffective

assistance generally are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the

record conclusively shows that counsel was ineffective. United States

v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Consequently, although

we grant Jackson’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief, we

decline to consider Jackson’s ineffective assistance claims because we

find that the record does not conclusively show that counsel was ineffective. 

We affirm Jackson’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

2 UNITED STATES v. JACKSON
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. JACKSON 3
Case: 1:03-cr-00007 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/03 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

Case: 1:03-cr-00007 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/03 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2

Case: 1:03-cr-00007 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/03 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3

Case: 1:03-cr-00007 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/03 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4

Case: 1:03-cr-00007 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/03 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5

Case: 1:03-cr-00007 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/03 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6

Case: 1:03-cr-00007 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/03 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7

Case: 1:03-cr-00007 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/03 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8

Case: 1:03-cr-00007 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/03 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9

Case: 1:03-cr-00007 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/06/03 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10
Document

Exhibit 10.3

AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE
EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC. 
EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
(As amended and restated effective December 20, 2018)


WHEREAS, Cigna Corporation (the “Company”) sponsors the Express Scripts Inc. Executive Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) for the benefit of a select group of one or more management or highly compensated employees; and 
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend Section 8.6 of the Plan to provide that all distributions from the Plan (including, without limitation, distributions of amounts invested in the Common Stock Fund in the Plan) shall be payable in cash; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to eliminate the unused portion of the reserved share pool described in Section 12 of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 16 of the Plan allows the Chief Human Resources Officer of the Company to amend the Plan at any time.
    NOW, THEREFORE, effective as of the date hereof, the Plan is hereby amended, as follows:
1.Section 8.6 of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:
“8.6    Form of Distribution.
Effective on and after July 1, 2021, distribution of a Participant’s Compensation Accounts shall in all cases be made in cash.   
When required, the Company shall withhold from any distribution of cash to a Participant or other person under this Plan an amount sufficient to cover any required withholding taxes, including the Participant’s social security and Medicare taxes (FICA) and federal, state and local income tax with respect to income arising from payment of the Award.”
2.Section 12 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following to the end thereof:
“Effective as of July 1, 2021, shares of Common Stock that were reserved pursuant to this Section 12 of the Plan but were not paid to Participants under Section 8.6 thereof as of July 1, 2021, shall no longer be allocated or reserved with respect to the Plan.  Shares of Common Stock shall not in any event be distributed or issuable under Section 8.6 of the Plan on and after July 1, 2021.”


1





Exhibit 10.3

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment No. 2 to the Plan is adopted as of this 30th day of June, 2021.


CIGNA CORPORATION


/s/ John Murabito            
By:    John Murabito
Title:    Executive Vice President Human Resources & Services of Cigna 
2
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of eLinear, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB/A  (Second  Amendment) for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ken
Hedrick,  Principal  Accounting  Officer 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) or 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.



/s/  Ken Hedrick
-----------------------------
Ken Hedrick,
Principal Accounting Officer
April 29, 2004


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


<PAGE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, ON 

BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY 

SITUATED, 

Plaintiff, 

- against - 

HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC., ET AL., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Lead Case No. 02-C5893 

(Consolidated) 

CLASS ACTION 

Judge Ronald A. Guzmán 

DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A 

MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a) 

AFTER THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE

Defendants Household International, Inc. and its former officers and directors William F. Aldinger, David A. Schoenholz and Gary Gilmer (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby 

move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) for an Order granting Defendants Judgment as a Matter of Law After The Close of Evidence for the reasons stated in the accompanying 

Memorandum of Law and Defendants’ April 22, 2009 Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Pursuant to Rule 50(a) After Plaintiffs Have 

Been Fully Heard (Dkt. 1567), incorporated by reference therein. 

Dated: April 29, 2009 

Respectfully submitted, 

CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 

By: /s/ Thomas J. Kavaler 

Thomas J. Kavaler 

Bar No. 1269927 

Howard G. Sloane 

Bar No. 1197391 

Patricia Farren 

Bar No. 1198498 
-2- 

Susan Buckley 

Bar No. 1198696 

Landis C. Best 

David R. Owen 

80 Pine Street 

New York, New York 10005 

(212) 701-3000 

- andEIMER STAHL KLEVORN & SOLBERG LLP 

224 South Michigan Avenue 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

(312) 660-7600 

Attorneys for Defendants Household 

International, Inc., William F. Aldinger, 

David A. Schoenholz and Gary Gilmer
Exhibit 23.1

                              Accountants' Consent

The Board of Directors
Atlantic Technology Ventures, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-34379, 333-35079, 333-65393, 333-40916, 333-49036 and 333-57550) on Form S-3
and (Nos. 333-15807 and 333-48531) on Form S-8 of Atlantic Technology Ventures,
Inc. (a development stage company) of our report dated March 30, 2001, relating
to the consolidated balance sheets of Atlantic Technology Ventures, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, and for the period from
July 13, 1993 (inception) to December 31, 2000, which report appears in the
December 31, 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Atlantic Technology Ventures,
Inc.

                                                KPMG LLP

Short Hills, New Jersey
April 16, 2001