alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lovino, Inc., Doing Business as Bodyline Collision, et al., Respondents, v Lavallee Law Offices et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[946 NYS2d 505]

—In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), entered October 27, 2010, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with *909the entry of judgment in the action on August 12, 2011 *(see Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see Lovino, Inc. v Lavallee Law Offs.,*96 AD3d 909 [2012] [decided herewith]; CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). Angiolillo, J.P., Eng, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 33046(U).]
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:2
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:3
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:4
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:5
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:6
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:7
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:8
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:9
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:10
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:11
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:12
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:13
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:14
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:15
Case: 1:04-cv-01984 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/17/04 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:16
Case: 1:01-cv-09719 Document #: 21 Filed: 02/18/03 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:176

Case: 1:01-cv-09719 Document #: 21 Filed: 02/18/03 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:177

Case: 1:01-cv-09719 Document #: 21 Filed: 02/18/03 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:178
EX-10.1









Exhibit 10.1




NRG Energy, Inc.

CFO Compensation Table for 2009




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Grants Under the Long Term
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	Incentive Plan
	 	 	 	 	 	 	2009 Annual	 	 	 	 	 	Non-	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Incentive Plan	 	Restricted	 	Qualified	 	 
	Name	 	2009 Base	 	Design	 	Stock	 	Stock	 	Performance
	and Title	 	Salary	 	Target	 	Maximum	 	Units(2)	 	Options(3)	 	Units(4)
	Clint Freeland,
Senior Vice
President and Chief
Financial Officer
	 	$	385,000	 	 	 	75	%(1)	 	 	150	%(1)	 	 	3,300	 	 	 	32,800	 	 	 	6,400	 








 




			
	(1)	 	For fiscal 2009, Mr. Freeland’s target incentive for annual incentive compensation will
be 75% of base salary with a maximum opportunity of 112.5% of base salary. Incentive
components for Mr. Freeland will include targets based on NRG’s free cash flow and EBITDA
in 2009, as well as other relevant operating performance objectives.
	 
	(2)	 	Each Restricted Stock Unit (“RSU”) is equivalent to one share of NRG’s common stock,
par value $0.01. Mr. Freeland will receive from NRG one such share of common stock for
each RSU on January 2, 2012. The number of units shown is subject to change based on the
NRG closing price on January 2, 2009.
	 
	(3)	 	Non-Qualified Stock Options will vest and become exercisable as follows: 33 1/3% on
January 2, 2010, 33 1/3% on January 2, 2011 and 33 1/3% on January 2, 2012. Stock options
will expire six years from the date of grant. The number of options
shown is subject to change based on the NRG closing price on January
2, 2009.
	 
	(4)	 	Mr. Freeland will be issued Performance Units (“PU’s”) by NRG under its Long-Term
Incentive Plan on January 2, 2009. Each PU will be paid out on January 2, 2012 if the
closing price of NRG’s Common Stock January 2, 2012 (the “Measurement Price”) is equal to
or greater than 9% growth in the NRG stock price compounded annually over three years, i.e.
cost of equity at target, based on the closing share price on January 2, 2009 (the
“Threshold Price”). The payout for each PU will be equal to a pro-rated amount in between
one-half and one share of common stock if the Measurement Price equals or exceeds the
Threshold Price but less than 12% growth in the NRG stock price compounded annually over
three years, i.e. cost of equity at target, based on the closing share price on January 2,
2009 (the “Target Price”). The payout for each PU will be equal to a pro-rated amount in
between one and two shares of common stock, if the Measurement Price is equal to the Target
Price but less than 18% growth in the NRG stock price compounded annually over three years,
i.e. cost of equity at maximum, based on the closing share price on January 2, 2009 (the
“Maximum Price”). The payout for each PU will be equal to two shares of common stock if the
Measurement Price is equal to or greater than the Maximum Price. The number of units shown
is subject to change based on the NRG closing price on January 2, 2009.






4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

ASTRA OIL COMPANY, LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company, 

Case No. 3:14-cv-1077-AA 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HYDRO SYNTEC CHEMICALS, INC., a 

Colorado corporation, and DAVID K. K. 

TSANG, an individual, 

Defendants. 

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS' 

FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $76,605 

On October 7, 2015, Plaintiff Astra Oil Company, LLC ("Astra") filed a motion for 

attorneys' fees (Dkt. No. 96) (the "Motion"). 

Defendants did not file a response to the Motion. 

On October 23, 2015, Astra filed a reply in support of its unopposed motion (Dkt. 

No. 104). 

Having reviewed the moving papers, the evidence submitted therewith and the 

reply memorandum, the most recent Oregon State Bar Economic Survey, and 

considering the Court's own experience with respect to attorneys' fees in the District of 

Oregon, the Court finds as follows: 

1. Astra is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees against Defendants 

Page 1 - ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES 

SUSSMAN SHANK LLP, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

1000 SW BROADWAY, SUITE 1400, PORTLAND, OREGON 97205-3089 

TELEPHONE (503) 227-1111 I FACSIMILE (503) 248-0130 

Case 3:14-cv-01077-AA Document 109 Filed 11/03/15 Page 1 of 3
pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. § 20.096 and because this action stems from an 

effort to collect on a judgment arising from a prior action in which 

attorneys' fees were awarded. Fadel v. El-Tobgy, 245 Or. App. 696, 703-

710 (2011 ). 

2. Mr. Davidson's rate of $300 per hour in this matter is reasonable for a 

ninth-year attorney with his skill and experience. 

3. Mr. Caplan's rate of $450 per hour in this matter is reasonable for a fiftyyear attorney with his skill and experience. 

4. The number of hours billed by Mr. Davidson over the course of this 

litigation, 235.7, is reasonable. 

5. The number of hours billed by Mr. Caplan over the course of this litigation, 

13.1, is reasonable. 

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED: 

Attorneys' fees in the requested amount of $76,605 are awarded in favor of Astra 

Oil Company, LLC, and jointly and severally against defendants Hydro Syntec 

Chemicals, Inc. and David Kok Kwong Tsang. 

This Order is effective without further action from the Court or a separate 

document and will become final thirty days from the date on which this Order is entered 

unless a Notice of Appeal is properly filed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this day of November, 2015 

Hon. Ann Aiken 

U.S. District Court Chief Judge 

Page 2 - ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES 

SUSSMAN SHANK LLP, ATIORNEYS AT LAW 

1000 SW BROADWAY, SUITE 1400, PORTLAND, OREGON 97205-3089 

TELEPHONE (503) 227-11111 FACSIMILE (503) 248-0130 

Case 3:14-cv-01077-AA Document 109 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 3
SUBMITTED BY: 

Clifford S. Davidson, OSB 125378 

SUSSMAN SHANK LLP 

1000 SW Broadway Ste 1400 

Portland, Oregon 97205 

(503) 227-1111 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Page 3 - ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES 

SUSSMAN SHANK LLP, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

1000 SW BROADWAY, SUITE 1400, PORTLAND, OREGON 97205-3089 

TELEPHONE (503) 227-1111 I FACSIMILE (503) 248-0130 

Case 3:14-cv-01077-AA Document 109 Filed 11/03/15 Page 3 of 3
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1337

For the relief of John Andre Chalot.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 29, 1997

Mr. GRAHAM introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of John Andre Chalot.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF NATU4 RALIZATION OF JOHN ANDRE CHALOT.

5 Notwithstanding title III of the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act, any predecessor provisions to such title, or

7 any other provision of law relating to naturalization, for

8 purposes of determining the eligibility of John Andre

9 Chalot for relief under the Agreement Between the Gov10 ernment of the United States and the Government of the

11 Federal Republic of Germany Concerning Final Benefits

12 to Certain United States Nationals Who Were Victims of
2

•S 1337 IS

1 National Socialist Measures of Persecution, signed at

2 Bonn on September 19, 1995, John Andre Chalot is

3 deemed to be a naturalized citizen of the United States

4 as of September 3, 1943.

Æ
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A1728. WEBLETS LLC et al v. HIGO SOLUTIONS, INC.

Appellee has moved this court to dismiss Appellants’ appeal. On October 2,

2014, this court ordered Appellants’ counsel “to file a brief that includes an

enumeration of errors no later than October 8, 2014.” We also stated: “No additional

extensions or amendments will be granted by this court, and counsel’s failure to

timely file a brief in compliance with our rules in every respect may result in a report

to the State Bar of Georgia and/or a finding of contempt under Court of Appeals Rule

7.” 

Despite the clear guidance provided by this court, Appellants’ counsel did not

file an amended brief on behalf of his clients until October 21, 2014. We must

therefore GRANT Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/04/2014

November 04, 2014
EXHIBIT 11.1

UNIFIED FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATION


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


                                                         NINE MONTHS ENDED                 THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                           SEPTEMBER 30,                      SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                   -----------------------------      ----------------------------
                                                      2001              2000              2001           2000
                                                   -----------       -----------      -----------      -----------

INCOME AVAILABLE TO COMMON STOCKHOLDERS
     Net income (loss)...........................  $  (390,816)      $(1,364,556)     $  (286,802)     $     177

CALCULATION OF COMMON STOCK
     Common shares outstanding at beginning
        of period................................    2,880,028         2,869,862        2,880,028      2,879,712
     Shares issued in private placement during period       --            11,530               --          1,680

     Repurchase of common shares.................           --            (1,364)              --         (1,364)
                                                   -----------       -----------      -----------      ---------
        Common shares used in basic calculation..    2,880,028         2,880,028        2,880,028      2,880,028
                                                   -----------       -----------      -----------      ---------

     Common stock equivalent of dilutive options.       25,536           170,797           25,536        170,797
                                                   -----------       -----------      -----------      ---------
     Common shares used in fully diluted calculation 2,905,564         3,050,825         2,905,564      3,050,825
 LOSS PER SHARE                                    -----------       -----------         ---------       --------
     Basic.......................................  $     (0.14)      $    (0.47)      $     (0.10)     $      --
                                                   ===========       ==========       ===========      =========
     Fully diluted...............................  $     (0.13)      $    (0.45)      $     (0.10)     $      --
                                                   ===========       ==========       ===========      =========

</TABLE>
#### HEINZ v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

December 2, 1895.)

Death by Wrongful Act—Damages—Province of Jury.

Whether 83,500 is an excessive amount to allow for the death of a bright and healthy boy, seven years old, is a question for the jury.

Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.

Action by Gustav Heinz, as administrator of Louis 0. Heinz, deceased, against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, to recover damages for the death of plaintiff’s intestate. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.

Morris & Whitehouse, for appellant.

M. L. Towns, for respondent.

PRATT, J.

Several witnesses testify that the car was going 14 or 15 miles an hour. There were also two persons, besides the motorman, standing upon the front platform. There was enough evidence to go to the jury upon the question of defendant’s negligence. The deceased boy was seven years of age, and the question whether he exercised such care as can be reasonably required from a lad of that age was peculiarly a question for the jury. The motion for nonsuit was properly denied. The charge of the court could not be objected to by defendant. The only question that remains is whether a verdict of $3,500, for the life of a bright and healthy boy, is excessive. That is peculiarly a question for the jury. We cannot say the verdict shows passion or prejudice.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ELIZABETH SOMERS,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent

______________________ 

2018-1427

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. CH-1221-16-0259-W-1.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

MICHAEL LEE VOGELSANG, JR., The Employment Law 

Group, PC, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. 

 DAVID PEHLKE, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by 

REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR., JOSEPH H. HUNT. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 
ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (LOURIE, BRYSON, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

 November 9, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form 
S-3 and Form S-8) of Cytel Corporation of our report dated February 5, 1998, 
except for Notes 5, 9 and 11, as to which the date is March 29, 1999, with 
respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cytel Corporation included 
in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998, filed 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Diego, California 
April 13, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,478
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,266
<ALLOWANCES>                                       585
<INVENTORY>                                      2,711
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,269
<PP&E>                                          24,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,940
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,130
<BONDS>                                         38,322
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,962
<SALES>                                         43,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,458
<CGS>                                           32,642
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,602
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (32)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,517
<INCOME-TAX>                                        80
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,437
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,437
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16


</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 134878 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 134878 COA: 278971 Luce CC: 06-000887-FC ROBERT PAUL DALGLIESH, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the A ugust 1, 2007 order 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.

d1119 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.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:2
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:3
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:4
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:5
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:6
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:7
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:8
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:9
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:10
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:11
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:12
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:13
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:14
Case: 1:04-cr-00720 Document #: 1-2 Filed: 08/09/04 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:15
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

ERNEST STEVEN FLORES,

No. 2:14-cv-1415-AC

Petitioner, 

OPINION AND ORDER

v. 

MARK NOOTH, Superintendent of Snake 

River Correctional Institution,

 Respondent. 

MOSMAN, J., 

On September 3, 2015, Magistrate Judge John Acosta issued his Findings and 

Recommendation (F&R) [28], recommending that Petitioner Ernest Flores’ Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus [2] should be DENIED. No objections to the Findings and Recommendation 

were filed.

DISCUSSION

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Case 2:14-cv-01415-AC Document 30 Filed 09/16/15 Page 1 of 2
2 – OPINION AND ORDER

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R [28] 

as my own opinion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 16th day of September, 2015. 

/s/ Michael W. Mosman____ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01415-AC Document 30 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 2