alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11760]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on Chemical Warfare 
Defense will meet in closed session on May 31, 2001, and June 1, 2001, 
at SAIC, Inc., 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22201. The Task 
Force will assess the possibility of controlling the risk and 
consequences of a chemical warfare (CW) attack to acceptable national 
security levels within the next five years.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this 
meeting, the Task Force will assess current national security and 
military objectives with respect to CW attacks; CW threats that 
significantly challenge these objectives today and in the future; the 
basis elements (R&D, materiel, acquisition, personnel, training, 
leadership) required to control risk and consequences to acceptable 
levels, including counter-proliferation; intelligence, warning, 
disruption; tactical detection and protection (active and passive); 
consequence management; attribution and deterrence; and policy. The 
Task Force will also assess the testing and evaluation necessary to 
demonstrate and maintain the required capability and any significant 
impediments to accomplishing this goal.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been 
determined that this Defense Science Board meeting concerns matters 
listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), and that accordingly this meeting will 
be closed to the public.

    Dated: May 4, 2001.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 01-11760 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                               EXHIBIT NO. 23(a)




INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
The Board of Directors
AMRESCO, INC.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
033-60015 and No. 033-58629 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No.
333-13823 on Form S-3 of our report dated February 7, 1997, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of AMRESCO, INC. for the year ended December 31,
1996.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
DALLAS, TEXAS

March 28, 1997
# C_2009232EN.01000101.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 232/01

| Date of adoption of the decision | 10.9.2009 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | N 412/09 |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | Länder Niedersachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | NORD/LB |
| Legal basis | Gesetz über die Feststellung des Haushaltsplans für das Haushaltsjahr 2009 für Niedersachsen; Gesetz zur Garantieermächtigung des Ministeriums der Finanzen zugunsten der Norddeutschen Landesbank- Girozentrale für Sachsen-Anhalt |
| Type of measure | Aid scheme |
| Objective | — |
| Form of aid | — |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 10 000 million |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration (period) | 15.8.2009-15.2.2010 |
| Economic sectors | — |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Länder Niedersachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt |
| Other information | — |

Date of adoption of the decision

10.9.2009

Reference number of State Aid

N 412/09

Member State

Germany

Region

Länder Niedersachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

NORD/LB

Legal basis

Gesetz über die Feststellung des Haushaltsplans für das Haushaltsjahr 2009 für Niedersachsen; Gesetz zur Garantieermächtigung des Ministeriums der Finanzen zugunsten der Norddeutschen Landesbank- Girozentrale für Sachsen-Anhalt

Type of measure

Aid scheme

Objective

—

Form of aid

—

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 10 000 million

Intensity

—

Duration (period)

15.8.2009-15.2.2010

Economic sectors

—

Name and address of the granting authority

Länder Niedersachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm

---
714230_1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------x

IN RE: WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LOCATION

:

:

:

:

21 MC 102 (AKH)

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

-----------------------------------------------------------------x

WLADYSLAW IWANCZYK (AND WIFE,

JADWIGA IWANCZYK),

 Plaintiff,

 v.

100 CHURCH, LLC, ET. AL.,

 Defendants.

: 

: 

:

:

Case No.: 07CV05362 (AKH)

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF 

MASTER ANSWER BY 

DEFENDANT JPMORGAN 

CHASE BANK N.A.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. as and 

for its responses to the allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-off Complaint) 

related to the Master Complaint filed in the above referenced action, hereby adopts its Master 

Answer to the Master Compla int, dated August 3, 2007, which was filed in the matter of In re 

World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH).

WHEREFORE, defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. respectfully requests that 

the above captioned actions be dismissed, with costs, attorneys’ fees, disbursements, and such 

other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York 

December 14, 2007

SATTERLEE STEPHENS BURKE & BURKE LLP

By: /s/James J. Coster_____________

James J. Coster (JC-1431)

Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 20 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 1 of 2
714230_1

2

230 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10169

Tel.: (212) 818-9200

Fax: (212) 818-9606

Attorneys for Defendant

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.

TO: Gregory J. Cannata, Esq.

Law Office of Gregory J. Cannata

233 Broadway

New York, NY 10279

Robert Grochow, Esq. 

Law Office of Robert Grochow

233 Broadway

New York, NY 10279

Christopher LoPalo, Esq.

Worby Groner Edelman Napoli and Bern

115 Broadway, 12th Floor 

New York, New York 10006

Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 20 Filed 12/14/2007 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 728 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 728

 To allow seniors to file their Federal income tax on a new Form 1040S.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2009

     Mr. Putnam (for himself and Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To allow seniors to file their Federal income tax on a new Form 1040S.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Seniors' Tax Simplification Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. FORM 1040S FOR SENIORS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury (or the Secretary's 
delegate) shall make available a form, to be known as ``Form 1040S'', 
for use by individuals to file the return of tax imposed by chapter 1 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Such form shall be as similar as 
practicable to Form 1040EZ, except that--
            (1) the form shall be available to individuals who have 
        attained age 65 as of the close of the taxable year,
            (2) the form may be used even if income for the taxable 
        year includes--
                    (A) social security benefits (as defined in section 
                86(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986),
                    (B) distributions from qualified retirement plans 
                (as defined in section 4974(c) of such Code), annuities 
                or other such deferred payment arrangements,
                    (C) interest and dividends, or
                    (D) capital gains and losses taken into account in 
                determining adjusted net capital gain (as defined in 
                section 1(h)(3) of such Code), and
            (3) the form shall be available without regard to the 
        amount of any item of taxable income or the total amount of 
        taxable income for the taxable year.
    (b) Effective Date.--The form required by subsection (a) shall be 
made available for taxable years beginning after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24181

1See Dickinson Osceola Railroad Association—

Acquisition and Operation Exemption—Union

Pacific Railroad Company, STB Finance Docket No.

34008 (STB served Mar. 5, 2001).

antitheft device. The significance of

many such changes could be de

minimis. The agency wishes to

minimize the administrative burden

which § 543.9(c)(2) could place on

exempted vehicle manufacturers and

itself. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if

the manufacturer contemplates making

any changes the effects of which might

be characterized as de minimis, it

should consult the agency before

preparing and submitting a petition to

modify.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: May 7, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety,

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–11946 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34037]

General Railway Corporation d/b/a

Iowa Northwestern Railroad

Corporation—Operation Exemption—

Line of Dickinson Osceola Railroad

Association

General Railway Corporation d/b/a

Iowa Northwestern Railroad

Corporation (GRC), a noncarrier, has

filed a notice of exemption under 49

CFR 1150.31 to operate approximately

37.21 miles of rail line currently owned

by Dickinson Osceola Railroad

Association (DORA). The rail line to be

operated extends between milepost

79.34, at a point west of Superior, IA,

and the end of the line at approximately

milepost 116.55, a point west of

Allendorf, IA, in Dickinson and Osceola

Counties, IA. GRC states that, on April

2, 2001, an agreement was reached

between it and DORA, wherein DORA

designated GRC as operator of the line.

GRC further states that ownership of the

line is expected to be transferred to GRC

from DORA in the near future. GRC

certifies that its projected revenues will

not exceed those that would qualify it

as a Class III rail carrier and its revenues

are not projected to exceed $5 million.1

The transaction was scheduled to be

consummated on or shortly after May 2,

2001 (7 days after the exemption was

filed).

If the notice contains false or

misleading information, the exemption

is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)

may be filed at any time. The filing of

a petition to revoke will not

automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all

pleadings, referring to STB Finance

Docket No. 34037, must be filed with

the Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423–

0001. In addition, one copy of each

pleading must be served on John Larkin,

General Railway Corporation, 4814

Douglas St., Omaha, NE 68132.

Board decisions and notices are

available on our website at

www.stb.dot.gov.

Decided: May 4, 2001.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik,

Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–11825 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–00–P
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

GUADALUPE GARCIA CORTEZ, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0459 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2016-000251-001

The Honorable Lauren R. Guyton, Commissioner

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Guadalupe Garcia Cortez, Kingman

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell, Judge Paul J. McMurdie, and Judge 

Kent E. Cattani delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 9-20-2018
STATE v. CORTEZ

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Petitioner Guadalupe Garcia Cortez seeks review of the 

superior court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed 

pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner’s 

first petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
Compensation Information for Non-Employee Directors.


 EXHIBIT 10.3 
  
 COMPENSATION INFORMATION FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
  
 Exelixis, Inc. 
 2006 Cash Compensation for Non-Employee Directors 
  

						
	Board of Directors	  	Retainer Fee	  	$	20,000
	  	Additional Chair Retainer Fee	  	$	10,000
	  	Regular Meeting Fee	  	$	2,500
	  	Special Meeting Fee*	  	$	500
			
	Audit Committee	  	Retainer Fee	  	$	6,000
	  	Additional Chair Retainer Fee	  	$	6,000
	  	Meeting Fee**	  	$	1,000
			
	Compensation Committee	  	Retainer Fee	  	$	5,000
	  	Additional Chair Retainer Fee	  	$	2,500
	  	Meeting Fee**	  	$	1,000
			
	Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee	  	Retainer Fee	  	$	5,000
	  	Additional Chair Retainer Fee	  	$	2,500
	  	Meeting Fee**	  	$	1,000
			
	Research & Development Committee	  	Retainer Fee	  	$	10,000
	  	Additional Chair Retainer Fee	  	$	10,000
	  	Meeting Fee**	  	$	5,000

  

	*	Meeting at which minutes are generated. 

  

	**	In-person meeting or teleconference at which minutes are generated. 

  
  
  
 Exelixis, Inc. 
 2006 Equity Compensation for Non-Employee Directors 
  

							
	Board of Directors	  	Initial Option Grant*	  	Number of Options	  	25,000
	  	Annual Option Grant	  	Number of Options	  	10,000

  

	*	For new directors only.
#### J.M. Braun Builders, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Maryland Casualty Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiffs, insureds under a policy issued by defendants, seek a declaration that defendants are obligated to indemnify them with respect to all claims set forth in the underlying complaints; that plaintiffs may employ defense counsel of their own choosing because of a conflict of interest between plaintiffs and defendants; and that plaintiffs are entitled to indemnification beyond the policy limits because of defendants’ bad faith. In an order of July 21, 1988, which defendants appeal, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action. In a subsequent order of August 24, 1988, from which plaintiffs appeal, *964the court held, *inter alia,*that defendants and not plaintiffs are entitled to select counsel to defend plaintiffs in the underlying action.

The July 21 order is modified to grant judgment to plaintiffs declaring that defendants are obligated to indemnify them on all underlying claims. Although defendants no longer dispute their obligation to indemnify plaintiffs, we reject defendants’ contention that this portion of plaintiffs’ action must be dismissed as moot. In accordance with the general rule that a declaratory judgment action should terminate in a declaration of the parties’ respective rights and obligations rather than in a dismissal *(see, Hirsch v Lindor Realty Corp.,*63 NY2d 878, 881; *Bartlett v Evans,*110 AD2d 612, 614), judgment is entered for plaintiffs.

Similarly, we reject plaintiffs’ contention that, because of their bad faith, defendants are obligated to indemnify them beyond the policy limits. Defendants’ initial reservation of their right to disclaim under the policy exclusion does not constitute bad faith warranting punitive relief. Therefore, the July 21 order is modified to grant judgment to defendants declaring that they have no obligation to indemnify plaintiffs beyond the policy limits.

The July 21 order is further modified to grant judgment to defendants declaring that they are entitled to select defense counsel. The insurance policy grants defendants the right to control the litigation *(see, Auerbach v Maryland Cas. Co.,*236 NY 247, 252). Because defendants have withdrawn their reservation of rights, there is no longer any conflict between defendants and plaintiffs, and thus no need for plaintiffs to employ independent counsel *(cf., Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Goldfarb,*53 NY2d 392, 401).

Consistent with the foregoing, the order of August 24, 1988, insofar as appealed from by plaintiffs, is affirmed. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 5 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 6 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 7 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 8 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 9 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 10 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 11 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 12 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 13 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 14 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 15 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 16 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 17 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 18 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 19 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 20 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 21 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 22 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 23 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 32-4 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 24 of 24
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 794 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 794

 To prohibit the use of funds to transfer enemy combatants detained by 
   the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the 
  Florence Federal Correctional Complex in Colorado, or to construct 
         facilities for such enemy combatants at such location.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 3, 2009

 Mr. Lamborn introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on the 
 Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 
 in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the use of funds to transfer enemy combatants detained by 
   the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the 
  Florence Federal Correctional Complex in Colorado, or to construct 
         facilities for such enemy combatants at such location.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO TRANSFER INDIVIDUALS DETAINED 
              AT GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO THE FLORENCE FEDERAL 
              CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX IN COLORADO, OR TO CONSTRUCT 
              FACILITIES FOR SUCH INDIVIDUALS AT SUCH LOCATION.

    None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to any 
Federal department or agency may be used--
            (1) to transfer any enemy combatant detained by the United 
        States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Florence 
        Federal Correctional Complex, Colorado; or
            (2) to build, modify, or enhance any facility at the 
        Florence Federal Correctional Complex, Colorado, for the 
        purpose of housing any such enemy combatant.
                                 <all>
```