alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Immar Realty, Inc., Appellant, v Mayson H. Tucker, Respondent.

— In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Oppido, J.), dated December 16, 1986, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*339Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

Although the "law date” set in the contract had passed and the plaintiff had not fully performed cleanup operations called for by the contract, the defendant continued to consider the contract executory. Thereafter, the defendant never established that time was of the essence by setting a new "law date” for the plaintiff’s performance.

Absent a clear and unequivocal statement calling for the plaintiff to close title, the plaintiff was not in default so as to defeat, as a matter of law, the cause of action for specific performance *(see, 4200 Ave. K. Realty Corp. v 4200 Realty Co.,*89 AD2d 978). Mangano, J. P., Niehoff, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal L 119/2013

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.119.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 119 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5630 April 2013 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2013.119.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 119

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5630 April 2013

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | 2013/197/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 27 October 2010 on State aid No C 15/08 (ex N 318/07, N 319/07, N 544/07 and N 70/08) which Italy plans to implement for Cantiere Navale De Poli
  (notified under document C(2010) 7253)

   (1) | 1 |
| | | 2013/198/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 27 June 2012 on the State aid SA.28356 (C 37/09, ex N 226/09) — Habidite Alonsotegi
  (notified under document C(2012) 4194)

   (1) | 9 |
| | | 2013/199/EU |
| | * | Commission Decision of 25 July 2012 on State aid case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland
  (notified under document C(2012) 5037)

   (1) | 30 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

2013/197/EU

*

Commission Decision of 27 October 2010 on State aid No C 15/08 (ex N 318/07, N 319/07, N 544/07 and N 70/08) which Italy plans to implement for Cantiere Navale De Poli
  (notified under document C(2010) 7253)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2010) 7253)

1

2013/198/EU

*

Commission Decision of 27 June 2012 on the State aid SA.28356 (C 37/09, ex N 226/09) — Habidite Alonsotegi
  (notified under document C(2012) 4194)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2012) 4194)

9

2013/199/EU

*

Commission Decision of 25 July 2012 on State aid case SA.29064 (11/C, ex 11/NN) — Differentiated air travel tax rates implemented by Ireland
  (notified under document C(2012) 5037)

   (1)

(notified under document C(2012) 5037)

30

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
#### Suffolk County Police Conference et al., Respondents, v Suffolk County Department of Civil Service et al., Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), entered February 18, 1988.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs *(see, Equitable Life Ins. Co. v Suburban Med. Assocs.,*104 AD2d 846, 848; *County of Westchester v Becket Assocs.,*102 AD2d 34, 49). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 12-17

IN RE COURT CLOSURE ON FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 2017, AND FRIDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2017.

O R D E R

By direction of the Chief Judge, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

will be closed on Friday, December 22, 2017, and Friday, December 29, 2017.

For purposes of computation and extension of time under the Court's Rules of Practice 

and Procedure, Friday, December 22, 2017, and Friday, December 29, 2017, will be considered 

days when the Court is closed. See U.S. VET. APP. R. 26(a)(1).

DATED: November 13, 2017 FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Gregory O. Block

GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6203 

To redesignate the Longfellow National Historic Site, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 

Mr. CAPUANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To redesignate the Longfellow National Historic Site, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Longfellow House5 Washington’s Headquarters National Historic Site Des6 ignation Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REDESIGNATION. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Longfellow National Historic 

9 Site in Cambridge, Massachusetts, shall be known and re10 designated as the ‘‘Longfellow House-Washington’s Head11 quarters National Historic Site’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6203 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the Longfellow National Historic Site shall be 

4 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Longfellow House-Wash5 ington’s Headquarters National Historic Site’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
EX-10.12





 Exhibit 10.12 

 
 



 
 July 8, 2019 
 Craig
Cappel 
 President, Reynolds Foil & Cooking 
 Dear
Craig: 
 As we have discussed, a critical component of our ongoing business strategy for Reynolds Consumer Products will be to explore opportunities for the
business that could lead to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) of the business or potentially a divestiture of the associated business entities. Your assistance is needed by Reynolds as we work through this process to help prepare the business for a
successful transaction. In light of this, we are offering you a special Transaction Success bonus (“Bonus”) that will become payable if a successful IPO is concluded or if there is a sale of the business by June 30, 2020. 

If an IPO transaction is completed, your potential bonus will be $463,500. Fifty percent (50%) of this bonus ($231,750) will be paid to you 30 days after the
effective date of an IPO, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. You will be paid the remaining fifty percent (50%) of this bonus six (6) months after the effective date of an IPO,
so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. This bonus is a gross amount and is subject to all applicable tax withholding requirements. This bonus will not be treated as compensation for any
purpose under any benefit plans or programs, unless statutorily required. 
 If a sales transaction is completed, your potential bonus will be $695,250.
Fifty percent (50%) of this bonus ($347,625) will be paid to you 30 days after the effective closing date of a sale, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. You will be paid the remaining
fifty percent (50%) of this bonus six (6) months after the closing date, so long as you do not voluntarily leave your employment with the succeeding entity during that time. This bonus is a gross amount and is subject to all applicable tax
withholding requirements. This bonus will not be treated as compensation for any purpose under any benefit plans or programs, unless statutorily required. 

Because of the significance of this strategic effort, and given that you are one of a select group of employees to be offered this opportunity, it is of
utmost importance that you keep this offer and all its terms entirely confidential. 
 Thank you for your willingness to assist the team during this
endeavor and for your help in ensuring the success of this very important process for Reynolds Consumer Products. 
 Sincerely, 

 

	
	 //s// Lance Mitchell

	 Lance Mitchell

	 Chief Executive Officer

	 Reynolds Consumer Products
#### Jordan Spencer & *als. versus*Abigail Garland.

The discharge of a poor debtor from arrest or imprisonment by giving a bond according to the provisions of St. 1835, c. 195, § 8, is not a satisfaction of the judgment, and does not impair the rights of the creditor to obtain satisfaction out of any property or estate of the debtor not exempted by law.

The bond is only a substitute for the detention of the body, and not a satisfaction of the judgment.

This was debt on a judgment, and the right of the plaintiff to recover was submitted to the Court on the following statement of facts.

It was admitted that the judgment declared on had been duly recovered; and that the defendant had been arrested on an execution upon said judgment, and been discharged from arrest and imprisonment by giving the bond required by the statute for the relief of poor debtors, with the conditions of which he had neglected to comply.

If upon the above facts this action can *be*maintained, *the*defendant is to be defaulted; if not, the plaintiffs are to be nonsuit.

*N. Wilson,*for the plaintiffs.

*I. Washburn,*for the defendant.

The opinion of the Court was by

Sheplet J.

The act of 1835, c. 195, for the relief of poor debtors, authorized their discharge from arrest or imprisonment on execution by their giving a bond according to the *76provisions of the eighth section, or when the creditor neglected to advance the money or give the security required by the fifteenth section. A voluntary discharge by the creditor or officer might operate as a satisfaction of the judgment, but not one made by an officer in obedience to law. The twelfil section however, to remove all doubt, provided, that the discharge of the debtor should not in such cases impair the rights of the creditor to obtain satisfaction out of any property or estate of the debtor not exempted by law. The bond is only a substitute for the detention of the body; and was not intended to be a satisfaction of the judgment. It only changes the form of the remedy. If satisfaction be obtained by an action upon it, the judgment will also be satisfied as well as the bond, which is collateral to it. If the bond has in this case been forfeited, it does not'appear, that more than one year had not. elapsed after the forfeiture before the commencement of this suit; and after that time no suit could be brought upon the bond. And if this action cannot be maintained the effect will be, that the defendants by giving a bond and neglecting to perform the condition without any payment extinguish the judgment, and deprive the plaintiffs of the right to collect the debt. The statute for the relief of poor debtors cannot receive such a construction.

*Exceptions.*overruled.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul Carmona, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), rendered December 19, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur. *[See,*124 Misc 2d 1045.]
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6237 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1351 2nd Street in Napa, California, as the ‘‘Tom Kongsgaard Post 

Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 

Mr. THOMPSON of California (for himself, Mr. BACA, Mr. BECERRA, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BILBRAY, Mrs. BONO MACK, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. CAMPBELL, 

Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CARDOZA, Ms. CHU, Mr. COSTA, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DREIER, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, Mr. FILNER, Mr. 

GALLEGLY, Mr. GARAMENDI, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HONDA, 

Mr. HUNTER, Mr. ISSA, Ms. LEE of California, Mr. LEWIS of California, 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, 

Mr. MCKEON, Ms. MATSUI, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. GEORGE

MILLER of California, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. RADANOVICH, Ms. RICHARDSON, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. ROYCE, Ms. 

LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, 

Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. SHERMAN, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. STARK, Ms. WATERS, Ms. 

WATSON, Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. NUNES, and Ms. PELOSI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1351 2nd Street in Napa, California, as the 

‘‘Tom Kongsgaard Post Office Building’’. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6237 IH

1 SECTION 1. TOM KONGSGAARD POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 867 Stockton Street in San 

4 Francisco, California, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘Tom Kongsgaard Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Tom Kongsgaard Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-149203, 333-145074, 333-139555, 333-125490, 333-121584, 333-121583, and 333-107238) of sanofi-aventis, of our reports dated March 3, 2009, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of sanofi-aventis and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of sanofi-aventis, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2008. 

Ernst & Young Audit 

Represented by Gilles Puissochet and JacquesPierres 

Paris-La Défense, France 

March 3, 2009
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6397 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2010 

Received 

DECEMBER 22, 2010 

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AN ACT 

To amend section 101(a)(35) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for a marriage for which the parties 

are not physically in the presence of each other due 

to service abroad in the Armed Forces of the United 

States. 

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6397 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Marine Sergeant Mi3 chael H. Ferschke, Jr. Memorial Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MILITARY MARRIAGES LACKING PHYSICAL PRES5 ENCE. 

6 Section 101(a)(35) of the Immigration and Nation7 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(35)) is amended by inserting 

8 before the period at the end ‘‘(except for failure to con9 summate the marriage caused by physical separation due 

10 to the service abroad of one of the contracting parties in 

11 an active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United 

12 States)’’. 

13 SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH PAYGO. 

14 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

15 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

16 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

17 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

18 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

19 by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 6397 RFS 

1 House of Representatives, provided that such statement 

2 has been submitted prior to the vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 15, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6179 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6179

    To exempt employment in the mobile amusement industry from the 
numerical limitation applicable to nonimmigrants provided status under 
  section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 22, 2010

   Mr. Djou introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To exempt employment in the mobile amusement industry from the 
numerical limitation applicable to nonimmigrants provided status under 
  section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM NUMERICAL LIMITATION FOR ALIENS EMPLOYED IN 
              MOBILE AMUSEMENT INDUSTRY.

    The numerical limitation contained in section 214(g)(1)(B) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(B)) shall not 
apply to any nonimmigrant alien issued a visa or otherwise provided 
status under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) who is employed (or has received an offer of 
employment) in the mobile amusement industry.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  141,453
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 168,499
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          142,360
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,799
<OTHER-SE>                                       (660)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   168,499
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,066
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,296
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   362
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,832
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    576
<INCOME-TAX>                                       198
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                378
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (563)
<NET-INCOME>                                     (185)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Franchot Murphy, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.), rendered May 9, 1983, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant, who was convicted of felony murder, contends, *inter alia,*that there was not sufficient independent proof to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony as required by CPL 60.22 (1), because the corroborative testimony did not establish that the predicate felony, an attempted robbery, had occurred. While we agree that the corroborative testimony, by itself, would be legally insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for attempted robbery, ■ that is not the test to be applied. "The requisite independent proof need only connect the defendant to the commission of the crime; it need not prove that he committed it” *(People v Dawkins,*151 AD2d 495, 496); "nor need it establish the elements of the crime” *(People v Flores,*143 AD2d 840, 841).

At bar, the corroborative evidence established that the defendant was part of a group of three men who arrived at the crime scene and then left together after the crime had occurred, and that the defendant was the only one in the *647group who had a gun. This evidence was sufficient "to connect the defendant to the crime so as to reasonably satisfy the jury that the accomplice [was] telling the truth” *(People v Glasper,*52 NY2d 970, 971; *see also, People v Hudson,*51 NY2d 233, 240; *People v Richardson,*126 AD2d 759).

With respect to the defendant’s *pro se*argument concerning the reopening of the *Wade*hearing, we reiterate that " '[t]here is no automatic rule which requires that a[n] [identifying] witness testify at a *Wade*hearing’ ” *(People v Tweedy,*134 AD2d 467, 468, quoting *People v Brown,*111 AD2d 928, 929).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them either to be without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
[865 NE2d 1240, 834 NYS2d 74]

#### Jenna Lynn Pahlad, an Infant, by the Appointed Guardian of Her Properties, Daniel Berger, et al., Appellants, v Lois Brustman, M.D., et al., Respondents.

Decided March 27, 2007

*902APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Benjamin Heinrich, P.C.,*Bronx *(Benjamin Heinrich*of counsel), for appellants.

*Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP,*New York City *(Steven C. Mandell*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed with costs. Plaintiffs had “timely awareness of the facts requiring [them] to make farther inquiry before the statute of limitations expired,” and an equitable estoppel defense to the statute of limitations is therefore “inappropriate as a matter of law” *(see Putter v North Shore Univ. Hosp.,*7 NY3d 548, 553-554 [2006]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.