alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Edward Fox et al., Appellants, v White Plains Medical Center, Respondent.

— In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickinson, J.), dated December 19, 1985, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3017 (c) for an order striking the ad damnum clause from the complaint on the ground that the action sounds in medical malpractice.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

After undergoing minor surgery at the defendant hospital, the plaintiff Edward Fox, to whom general anesthesia had been administered, arose from his hospital bed and attempted to walk unassisted to the bathroom. He became dizzy and fell, severely injuring his back. The plaintiffs attribute the accident to the failure of the defendant hospital to have siderails on the patient’s hospital bed and maintain that the gravamen of the action is common-law negligence. We disagree and conclude that Special Term did not err in striking the ad damnum clause.

When the duty owing to the plaintiff by the defendant arises from the physician-patient relationship or is substantially related to medical treatment, the breach thereof gives rise to an action sounding in medical malpractice as opposed to simple negligence *(see, Bleiler v Bodnar,*65 NY2d 65; *Stanley v Lebetkin,*123 AD2d 854). Inasmuch as the essence of the plaintiffs’ allegations here is that an improper assessment of the patient’s condition and the degree of supervision required, particularly with regard to his ability to ambulate postoperatively, led to the subject injuries, the action was properly determined to sound in medical malpractice rather than ordinary negligence *(see, Coursen v New York Hosp.Cornell Med. Center,*114 AD2d 254, 256; *Lenny v Loehmann,*78 AD2d 813). The conduct complained of is not such as may be readily assessed on the basis of the common, everyday *539experience of the trier of facts *(Miller v Albany Med. Center Hosp.,*95 AD2d 977, 978; *Hale v State of New York,*53 AD2d 1025, *lv denied*40 NY2d 804).

CPLR 3017 (c) requires the elimination of any mention of damages whenever a medical malpractice claim is alleged. “The prohibition is not limited to a specific claim or cause of action within a complaint, but rather applies to the entire complaint which includes an action for medical malpractice” *(Vigo v New York Hosp.,*113 Mise 2d 972, 975; *accord, Miller v Albany Med. Center Hosp., supra,*at p 979). Were the rule otherwise, the legislative purpose and statutory intent could readily be circumvented merely by pleading alternative causes of action or joining nonmedical defendants *(Pizzingrilli v Von Kessel,*100 Misc 2d 1062). Accordingly, the ad damnum clause was properly eliminated from both the principal and derivative causes of action. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
              
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             967
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,422
<ALLOWANCES>                                       873
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,268
<PP&E>                                             239
<DEPRECIATION>                                      72
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,813
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            37
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,813
<SALES>                                         20,568
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,568
<CGS>                                           13,991
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,991
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,745
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    583
<INCOME-TAX>                                       216
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                368
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       368
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated March 10, 2008, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Intelligroup, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007, in each of the following:

Registration Statement No. 333-11486 on
Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-139639 on Form S-8 Registration
Statement No. 333-133751 on Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-70244 on
Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-31809 on Form S-8

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP Metropark,
New Jersey March 28, 2008

112

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6137

TONY BROWN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ROBERT SMITH,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-588-5-BO)

Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tony Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his

petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Brown v. Smith, No. CA-98-588-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan.

14, 1999). 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 4.60.1

 

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO THE STRUCTURE CONTRACTS AMONG FANG HOLDINGS LIMITED, SHAREHOLDERS OF A CONSOLIDATED CONTROLLED ENTITY, THE CONSOLIDATED CONTROLLED ENTITY AND CERTAIN PRC SUBSIDIARIES OF FANG HOLDINGS LIMITED

 

	
 
    	
 
    	
Date of Agreement
    	
 
    	
Date of Original Structured Contracts
    	
 
    	
Subsidiary of Fang
   Holdings Limited
    	
 
    	
Consolidated
   Controlled Entity
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
1.
    	
 
    	
January 28, 2019
    	
 
    	
December 20, 2015
    	
 
    	
Jia Tian Xia Network 
   Technology Co., Ltd.
    	
 
    	
Beijing Jia Tian Xia 
   Advertising Co., 
   Ltd.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
2.  
    	
 
    	
August 23, 2019
    	
 
    	
December 20, 2015
    	
 
    	
Jia Tian Xia Network 
   Technology Co., Ltd.
    	
 
    	
Beijing SouFun 
   Internet Information 
   Service Co., Ltd.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
3.  
    	
 
    	
December 23,   2019
    	
 
    	
May 15, 2018
    	
 
    	
Beijing Tuo Shi Huan 
   Yu Network 
   Technology Co., Ltd.
    	
 
    	
Beijing Century Jia 
   Tian Xia 
   Technology 
   Development Co., 
   Ltd.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
4.  
    	
 
    	
December 22,   2019
    	
 
    	
December 20, 2015
    	
 
    	
Jia Tian Xia Network 
   Technology Co., Ltd.
    	
 
    	
Beijing Li Tian 
   Rong Ze 
   Technology 
   Development Co., 
   Ltd.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
5.
    	
 
    	
December 24,   2019
    	
 
    	
May 15, 2018
    	
 
    	
Beijing Tuo Shi Huan 
   Yu Network 
   Technology Co., Ltd.
    	
 
    	
Beijing SouFun 
   Science and 
   Technology 
   Development Co., 
   Ltd.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
6.
    	
 
    	
February 25,   2019
    	
 
    	
May 15, 2018
    	
 
    	
Beijing Tuo Shi Huan 
   Yu Network 
   Technology Co., Ltd.
    	
 
    	
Beijing Yi Ran Ju 
   Ke Technology 
   Development Co., 
   Ltd.
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
7.
    	
 
    	
December 24,   2019
    	
 
    	
December 30, 2016
    	
 
    	
Beijing SouFun 
   Network Technology 
   Co., Ltd.
    	
 
    	
Beijing Gu Tian Xia 
   Information Co., 
   Ltd.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frederico Gonzalez, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered October 21, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Criminal Term did not abuse its discretion in denying, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The defendant’s assertions were fully set forth in his motion papers and both defense counsel and the defendant were afforded an opportunity to address the court in support *331of the motion to withdraw. Furthermore, sentencing was conducted by the same court as presided at the defendant’s plea. Nothing in the record lends support to the defendant’s bold assertions of innocence and coercion. Nor does it support a claim that counsel failed to advise the defendant that he waived his statutory speedy trial claim (CPL 30.30) by his plea of guilty. We, thus, find no error in the court’s refusal to order a hearing on the defendant’s claims *(see, People v Ramos,*63 NY2d 640, 642-643; *People v Colon,*114 AD2d 967; *People v Stubbs,*110 AD2d 725). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
mime-ex1042_993.pptx.htm






 FY 2021 Executive  Incentive Plan Mimecast Limited I  Effective: April 1, 2020 Exhibit 10.42







  FY 2021 Executive Incentive Plan Metrics & Weighting: 75% Net New ARR / 25% Non-GAAP Operating Income. Awards are interpolated between achievement percents (e.g., 102.5% NNARR achievement results in award of 105%). Each metric is capped at 150% of award quarterly; overall quarterly award payments are capped at 100% with any overachievement earned to be reconciled at year end. If the full year metric target is achieved, then any quarters that were paid at less than 100% will be paid out at target for that missed quarter and included in the Q4 award. Subject to the Mimecast Limited Policy for Recoupment of Executive Incentive Compensation (Clawback Policy). FY21 Payout Scale  Net New ARR (NN ARR)- 75% of Incentive   Achievement Award  75% 75%  80% 80%  85% 85%  90% 90%  95% 95% FY21 Target 100% 100%  105% 110%  110% 120%  115% 130%  120% 140%  125% 150%  Non-GAAP Operating Income (OI)- 25% of Incentive   Achievement Award  85% 50%  90% 67%  95% 83% FY21 Target 100% 100%  105% 117%  110% 133%  115% 150%
# L_2009200EN.01005201.xml

| 31.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 200/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 200/52

---

Corrigendum to Regulation (EC) No 595/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to emissions from heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Directive 2007/46/EC and repealing Directives 80/1269/EEC, 2005/55/EC and 2005/78/EC

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 188 of 18 July 2009
  )

On page 9, Article 18, second paragraph, first sentence:

for:

‘It shall apply from 7 August 2009.’,

read:

‘It shall apply from 31 December 2012.’.

---
##### 



Execution Copy
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO  FIFTH AMENDED AND RESTATED CREDIT AGREEMENT
 Amendment th
 RECITALS
    Section 1 Amendments to the Credit Agreement . Section 3
 clause (iii) Section 1.1(c)
 Refunded Swing Line Loan
 clause (v) Section 1.1(c)




---



##### 



Clause (iii) Section 1.5(a)
  Applicable Swing Line Margin Annex A
 Applicable Swing Line Margin Section 1.6
 Index Rate Annex A
 Index Rate The Wall Street Journal The Wall Street Journal
 Annex A
 Commercial Paper Rate The Wall Street Journal
 Federal Funds Rate
 Section 2 Representations and Warranties
 2




---



##### 



Section 3 Conditions to Effectiveness .
 Section 4 Reference to and Effect Upon the Credit Agreement .
   Section 5 Waiver and Release .
  3




---



##### 



Section 6 Costs and Expenses.
 Section 11.3
 Section 7 Governing Law.
  Section 8 Headings.
  Section 9 Counterparts.
  Section 10 Confidentiality .
   4




---



##### 



BORROWER:WILSONS LEATHER HOLDINGS INC.By:
Title:
    
    /s/ Stacy Kruse

Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerLENDERS:GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL CORPORATION,
as Agent, Lender and Swing Line LenderBy:
    
    /s/ Kristina M. MillerTitle:
    

Duly Authorized SignatoryWELLS FARGO RETAIL FINANCE, LLC, as
Lender and Syndication AgentBy:
    
    /s/ Cory LoftusTitle:
    
    Vice President




---



##### 



Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc.By:
    
    /s/ Stacy KruseTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer and
TreasurerWilsons Center, Inc.By:
    
    /s/ Stacy KruseTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer and
TreasurerRosedale Wilsons, Inc.By:
    
    /s/ Stacy KruseTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer and
TreasurerRiver Hills Wilsons, Inc.By
    
    /s/ Stacy KruseTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer and
TreasurerBermans The Leather Experts Inc.By: 
Title:
    
    /s/ Stacy Kruse

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
# C_2005175EN.01000401.xml

| 15.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/4

---

Final report of the Hearing Officer in Case COMP/37.750 — Brasseries Kronenbourg, Brasseries Heineken

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings — OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2005/C 175/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision in the present case does not give rise to particular comments on the proceedings.

On 5 February 2004 the Commission sent a Statement of Objections to Groupe Danone, Brasserie Kronenbourg S.A, Heineken N.V and Heineken France S.A. Access to file was granted on 10 and 11 February 2004 for Groupe Danone and Brasserie Kronenbourg S.A. and on 12 February 2004 for Heineken N.V and Heineken S.A.

The parties responded in writing between 2 and 6 April 2004. All parties waived their right to an oral hearing.

In the light of responses to the Statement of Objections, the Commission limited the scope of the objections against the parties.

I conclude that the rights to be heard have been respected in the present case. The draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making known their views.

Brussels, 22 September 2004.

Karen WILLIAMS

---
<PAGE>   1



                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports dated January 29, 1998 included in this Form 10-K, into Caraustar
Industries, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File
No. 33-77682, File No. 33-75838, File No. 33-53808, File No. 33-53726, and File
No. 33-53728), Form S-3 (File No. 333-24431) and Form S-4 (File No. 333-29937).


/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
-----------------------
ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Atlanta, Georgia
March 26, 1998
Flaming Gorge Technical Working Group

Meeting Notes

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

In attendance: Heather Patno, Jed Parker, Jerry Wilhite, Kevin McAbee, Ashley Nielson, Randy 

Staffeldt, Daryl Magnuson, Peter Crookston, Tildon Jones, Tom Chart, Dan Schaad, Kevin 

Bestgen, Steve Hulet, John Morton, Leslie Bennett

• Jerry reported on the Anglers meeting.

• Temperatures from the selective withdrawal structure were discussed.

• Hydrology Summary was reviewed

o This year has been an anomaly. 

o Ashley pointed out her figures are from yesterday and with today’s precipitation 

and warmer temperatures we could now see a peak in the Yampa in the next 10 

days. Flows expected to reach 9,600 cfs in the next ten days.

o The ROD has Flaming Gorge as wet and the Yampa at Average-Below Median. 

Utilizing the flexibility outlined in the ROD and shifting one classification down, 

the hydrology classification will be moderately wet. It is unlikely we will meet 

moderately wet targets at Jensen of 20,300 cfs peak magnitude and 18,600 cfs for 

14-day duration. Green River at Jensen may not reach 18,600 this year.

o Heather has not included information relative to the ten-day deterministic and 

long-term Yampa River forecast due to the wet conditions in which operating 

procedures are for hydrology. Ashley has this if needed and the link is public on 

their website here: 

https://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/product/hydrofcst/csv2table.php?fname=yampa_peak

/ydlc2_dly.csv

o There is still a lot of SWE at Tower. Uncertainty exists as to how this will melt 

off and whether there will be a second peak later in the season. It is likely the 

Yampa will increase again, but whether the increase is sustained over the next few 

weeks or a second peak occurs in late-May is still uncertain.

o Kevin and Tildon reported the water is still really cold and pushing spawning 

until the end of May. There are no ripe or tuberculate fish in the razorback 

sampling.

• Flaming Gorge Operations were discussed. The current elevation is 6022. There is some 

flexibility to decrease to 6600 cfs. Two options were discussed: 1) Decrease releases now 

potentially increasing the temperature of the water to assist with spawning. Would need 

to increase to 8600 cfs at a later date. 2) Maintain flows now and be able to decrease 

releases earlier for pikeminnow base flows. It was agreed upon to decrease releases now. 

Heather will do so in the next few days and will hold that level until larvae emergence.

• Stewart Lake operations were waiting for this discussion to determine action.

• Next FGTWG Meeting will be brief held at 11:00 am on May 17, 2017.
Trout Management Flows 

White Paper

Technical Work Group Meeting

June 16, 2022

Kerri Pedersen

Bureau of Reclamation

Upper Colorado Basin
What is a trout management flow?

 One of the flow experiments in LTEMP

 Reduce recruitment of rainbow trout to 

minimize number of rainbow trout moving out of 

Glen Canyon and downstream to LCR reach.

 Peak discharge of water from the dam pushes 

YOY trout into low angle nearshore habitats, and 

then the water level is dropped rapidly with the 

objective of stranding the YOY trout in the 

shallows.
LTEMP Biological Opinion

 TMF implemented and tested 

for efficacy early in LTEMP 

(preferably first 5 years)

 Trigger is high trout 

recruitment

 Could be implemented early in 

LTEMP period even if not 

triggered by high trout 

recruitment
Past Progress on TMF

Series of meetings in 2019

Identify sources of uncertainty

Questions that could be answered with research

Questions that could only be answered with full 

implementation

Related to trigger, effectiveness, flow conditions

Design of hydrograph
Purpose of White Paper

Not a decision document

Compilation of information to reference when 

making a decision

Review current state of science 

Design

Implementation

Effectiveness 

Focus on rainbow trout

Brown trout included but not the focus

*Not a substitute for tribal consultation
Outline of Paper

Problem

Purpose

Background

• Recreational Rainbow Trout Fishery

• Trout Management Tools & Experimental Actions

TMF Experimental Design

• Experimental Theory

• Triggering Mechanism

Hydrograph Elements for TMF implementation

Monitoring & Effectiveness

Summary

Other Considerations

Recommendations/Next Steps
Next steps

•Draft paper will be posted on TWG website with 

June meeting materials

• Comments focused on topics missing in conversation 

related to TMFs

•Provide any thoughts/comments to 

kpedersen@usbr.gov by September 15th, 2022
Questions?
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     Financial Data Schedule for the First Quarter 1997
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001000779
<NAME>                         Consolidated Delivery & Logistics, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     $1.00
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    $1.00
<CASH>                                          2,927
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  22,502
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,409
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,179
<PP&E>                                         12,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                  8,243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,944
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          22,129
<BONDS>                                         2,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            7
<OTHER-SE>                                      8,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   35,944
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               41,735
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  31,941
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                9,938
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  337
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                244
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   186
<INCOME-TAX>                                      186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               186
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      111
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .02
        



</TABLE>