alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fernando Charlie, Appellant, v Carlos Guerrero, Defendant, and Henry Contreras et al., Respondents.

[876 NYS2d 368]&emdash;

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered August 27, 2007, which granted the motion by defendants Contreras and Jimenez for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated as against these defendants.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to serious injury of a nondegenerative nature by reason of a permanent limitation of the use of a body member as a of this accident (Insurance Law § 5102 [d]). Objective evidence of this limitation was presented in the form of an by plaintiff’s orthopaedic surgeon that plaintiff’s right shoulder range of motion remained “limited and/or restricted” even after corrective surgery. Specifically, significant restrictions were noted in both the forward flexion and abduction of the *571shoulder, as well as the internal and external rotation of the arm. Plaintiffs surgeon concluded that this significant limitation of the use and range of motion in the right shoulder would be permanent. Therefore, despite plaintiffs failure to meet the 90/180-day test of curtailment of activities, his claim of serious injury did raise a triable issue under the statute’s test of a “permanent consequential limitation of use of a body . . . member” *(id,.; see generally Prestol v McKissock,*50 AD3d 600 [2008]; *Rienzo v La Greco,*11 AD3d 1038 [2004]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
July 7 , 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

WILLIAM MICHAEL DIXON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00510

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order th is decision certified below for observance.
355 U.S. 837, 78 S.Ct. 62

#### Robert L. MARTIN and L. A. Martin, petitioners, v. S. BIRCH & SONS, a Corporation, C. F. Lytle, a Corporation, and Green Construction Company, a Corporation, Partners Doing Business as Birch, Lytle & Green.

No. 359.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 14, 1957.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40358

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff−Appellee,

versus

ISSY AVILA-BAULE,

Defendant−Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 1:13-CR-790-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Issy Avila-Baule appeals her 36-month within-guidelines sentence for 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 2, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40358 Document: 00512854415 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2014
No. 14-40358

illegal reentry after deportation. She claims that the district court plainly 

erred in applying the eight-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C)

based on a finding that her Texas conviction of felony theft was an aggravated 

felony. She contends that Texas’s theft statute encompasses conduct broader 

than the generic, contemporary definition of theft because the Texas statute

includes the appropriation of property when it is with consent that has been 

induced through deception or coercion. In United States v. Rodriguez-Salazar, 

768 F.3d 437, 438 (5th Cir. 2014), we rejected that theory and held that the 

Texas theft statute, as set forth in Texas Penal Code § 31.03, “does not deviate 

from the generic crime of theft.” 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-40358 Document: 00512854415 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2014
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 13 (Friday, January 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 5509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1563]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of Export Administration (BXA).
    Title: Short Supply Regulations--Unprocessed Western Red Cedar.
    Agency Form Number: None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0694-0025.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection of 
information.
    Burden: 35 hours.
    Average Time Per Response: 60 minutes per response.
    Number of Respondents: 35 respondents.
    Needs and Uses: The information is collected as supporting 
documentation for license applications to export western red cedar logs 
to enforce the Export Administration Act's prohibition against the 
export of such logs from State or Federal lands.
    Affected Public: Individuals, businesses or other for-profit 
institutions.
    Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Clearance 
Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, (202) 482-3129, 
Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, D.C. 20230, or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c9848aa5a8b0bda6a789ada6aae7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3f727c535e464b50517f5b505c11585049">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20230.

    Dated: January 12, 2001.
Madeleine Clayton,
Departmental Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-1563 Filed 1-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

WILLIAM R. KELMAN 

v. CFTC Docket No. CRAA 12;;&3 

NATIONAL FUTURES ASSOCIATION ORDER OF SUMMARY 

AFFIRMANCE 

·.) 

Upon review of the record and the parties' appellate submissions, we have determined 

• --! 

~') (·) 

! n1 --c~ .._ .

-·~ . ) --." 

that the findings and conclusions of the National Futures Association are supported by the weight 

of the evidence; we therefore adopt them. We also find that none of the arguments on appeal 

present important questions of law or policy. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of 

the National Futures Association without opinion. 1 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

By the Commission (Chairman GENSLER and Commissioners SOMMERS, CHILTON, 

O'MALIA and WETJEN.) 

Melis a Jurgens 

Secretary of the Commissi n 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Dated: January 22, 2013 

1 Pursuant to Commission Regulation 171.33(b ), 17 C.F.R. § 171.33(b ), neither the initial decision nor the 

Commission's order of summary affimance shall serve as a Commission precedent in other proceedings.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Ted B. Lyon III v. Building Galveston, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-19-00571-CV

Trial court case number: 10-CV-2353

Trial court: 405th District Court of Galveston County

Party filing motion: Appellant

The en banc court has unanimously voted to deny appellant’s motion for en banc 

reconsideration. It is ordered that the motion is denied.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy___________________________

 Acting for the Court

* En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly, Goodman, Landau, 

Hightower, Countiss, Rivas-Molloy, Guerra, and Farris.

Date: ____June 22, 2021_____
ex10_1.htm



Exhibit 10.1







 


April 1, 2016


 


Dear Jim:







The purpose of this letter is to document your appointment to serve as the Company’s Interim Chief Medical Officer (“Interim CMO):








	
  

	
1.

	
Position.  Effective April 1, 2016, your new title is Interim Chief Medical Officer, reporting directly to the Company’s President & Chief Operating Officer.







 



	
  

	
2.

	
Compensation.  The Company will compensate you at the rate of $360,000 per annum.  In addition, you will be eligible for a discretionary target bonus of up to 35% of your base salary during the interim period you serve as the Company’s Interim CMO based on your achievement of corporate and personal goals as established by the Company.  The determination of whether you have achieved the goals, whether you will receive a bonus, and, if so, the bonus amount will be paid, shall be made the Company in its sole and absolute discretion.







 



	
  

	
3.

	
Stock Option Grant.   The Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) has approved a stock option (“Option”) entitling you to purchase 45,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company on March 4, 2016.  The Option exercise price has been set at 100% of the fair market value of the Common Stock, or $3.75, at the grant date of March 4, 2016.  The Option shall vest monthly over six months from April 1, 2016.







 



	
  

	
4.

	
Section 16 Officer.  Concurrent with your appointment, you are designated as a section 16 officer of the Company.  You are expected to comply with all of the Company’s trading policies and filing requirements with the Securities Exchange Commission under Securities Exchange Act of 1934.







 



	
  

	
5.

	
Unless subsequently notified by the Company, no change in this letter will constitute or constitutes changes to the existing terms of your employment with the Company.  You are expected to comply with all of the Company’s policies and practices.







 







 


Sincerely,


 







 



	
/s/ May Liu

	 
	
May Liu

	 
	
Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration

	 
	  	 










ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO AS SET FORTH ABOVE:


 


 



	 	
/s/ James Pennington

	 
	

Dated: April 1, 2016

	
James Pennington
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER  ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       9,297,680
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       2,405,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  6,805,366
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      26,847,223
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    183,256,984
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,200,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             238,675,766
<DEPOSITS>                                 151,798,726
<SHORT-TERM>                                59,000,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,714,441
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,609
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,063,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             238,675,766
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             11,921,271
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              899,444
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               112,992
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            11,921,271
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,737,588
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,249,883
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,671,388
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  301,562
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             601,412
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              6,095,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,163,865
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,163,865
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,311,154
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .51
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,800,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                    0
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CARSON FILLMORE

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 997

[ July 2, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Bernard I. Bober

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 98

- 2188CF10A

.

Carson Fillmore, Crestview, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER

, G ROSS and F ORST

, J J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1765/2004

of 13 October 2004         

amending Regulation (EC) No 2076/2002 as regards the continued use of the substances listed in Annex II

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1), and in particular the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 2076/2002 the line concerning the active substance 4-CPA (4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid) is replaced by the following:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 13 October 2004.

For the Commission

David BYRNE            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Commission Directive 2004/71/EC (OJ L 127, 29.4.2004, p. 104).

(2)OJ L 319, 23.11.2002, p. 3. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 835/2004 (OJ L 127, 29.4.2004, p. 43).

----
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Robert W. DecherdRobert W. DecherdChairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive OfficerJuly 27, 2010/s/ Alison K. EngelAlison K. EngelSenior Vice President/Chief Financial OfficerJuly 27, 2010
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Luis RODRIGUEZ MARTINEZ, also known as Jose Luis Rodriguez, also known as Jose Luis Rodriguez-Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-20779

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gerardo S. Montalvo, The Montalvo Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jose Luis Rodriguez Martinez (Rodriguez) appeals the sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Rodriguez contends that the district court erred by imposing a 16-level crime of violence enhancement based on his prior Texas conviction for sexual assault of a child, which is a violation of Texas Penal Code *920§ 22.011(a)(2). He argues that this conviction does not constitute the enumerated offense of sexual abuse of a minor or statutory rape under the Guidelines because an offense under § 22.011 can be committed against a victim who is only 16 years of age. Rodriguez concedes that his argument is foreclosed and moves for summary affirmance to preserve the issue for appeal.

As Rodriguez concedes, his argument is foreclosed by *United States v. Castro-Guevarra,*575 F.3d 550 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 649, 175 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009). Accordingly, his motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
William M. WINDSOR, petitioner, v. Ginger SNAP, et al.

No. 16-6122.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Horace ABNEY, Jr., petitioner, v. Scott LEWIS, Warden.

No. 16-6463.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 77Q1 – Additional Items**

**Item 15**
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Mark Barbero v. Belinda Kay Barbero

June 25, 1991

Case No. (Chancery) 117407

By JUDGE ROSEMARIE ANNUNZIATA

The matter before the Court is defendant's motion to reconsider an order entered on May 31, 1991, denying defendant's motion for attorney fees.

In the absence of specific statutory authority, a party may not recover attorney fees. *Hackett v. Stuckey’s, Inc.,*670 F. Supp. 172 (W.D. Va. 1987); *World Travel, Inc. v. Omega Travel, Inc.,*710 F. Supp. 169 (E.D. Va. 1989); 5A Michies’ Jurisprudence, *Costs,*§ 3 (1989). Counsel for the defendant argues that the Court has such specific statutory authority pursuant to Va. Code § 20-99(6), which provides that costs may be awarded to either party in a divorce suit "as equity and justice may require.” However, the statute does not authorize an award of attorney fees where the Court determines that it lacks jurisdiction to grant a divorce to the parties nór is there any general statute providing for such an award. *Compare*Va. Code Section 8.01-266 (providing express authority for a court to award attorney fees where the court determines that a case has been filed in an improper venue).

Because of the absence of any statutory authority to award attorney fees, the Court denies the defendant’s motion for reconsideration of its May 31, 1991, order.
Exhibit 99.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of GenVec, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey W. Church, as Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Corporate Secretary of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the dates and
periods covered by the Report.

This
certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Executive Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.

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

|March 28, 2003 |  |                                                                                                 
|-------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|               |  | /s/Jeffrey W. ChurchJeffrey W. Church
Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Corporate Secretary

---

QuickLinks