alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John E. Pope, Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On this motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 (1) to set aside his sentence, defendant has failed to allege that he wished to say anything at the time of sentencing or that he would have addressed the court if he had been given the opportunity *(see, People v McClain,*35 NY2d 483, 491; *People v Regan,*88 AD2d 664). Further, at no time did defendant’s attorney request that defendant be afforded his statutory right to make a statement personally, and the failure to comply with the statutory mandate in this regard was not otherwise brought to the court’s attention at a time when it could so readily have been corrected. Thus, the error, which was not of *906constitutional dimension, was not preserved for review *(see, People v Green,*54 NY2d 878). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J.—CPL art 440.) Present —Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements of our report dated February 27, 2014, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules of Cincinnati Financial Corporation and subsidiaries and the effectiveness of Cincinnati Financial Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cincinnati Financial Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2013 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph concerning a change in accounting for costs associated with acquiring or renewing insurance contracts in 2012).





No. 333-24817 (on Form S-8)


No. 333-103509 (on Form S-8)


No. 333-103511 (on Form S-8)


No. 333-126714 (on Form S-8), as amended


No. 333-155373 (on Form S-3), as amended


No. 333-178075 (on Form S-8)


No. 333-178080 (on Form S-3), as amended








/S/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





Cincinnati, Ohio


February 27, 201 4
EX-10.25 DESCRIPTION OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION



 






EXHIBIT 10.25




Description of Director Compensation



Non-employee directors of the Company currently receive $8,750 per fiscal quarter in compensation
for service as director, plus $1,250 per board and committee meeting attended, except the Chairmen
of the Audit Committee and the Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee each receive
$10,000 per fiscal quarter and $1,250 per board and committee meeting attended. Non-employee
directors may elect to defer the receipt of meeting and/or director fees in accordance with the
terms of the Company’s Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan, as amended and restated effective
January 1, 2003. In addition, non-employee directors may from time to time be granted restricted
stock units pursuant to the provisions of the Genuine Parts Company 1999 Long Term Incentive Plan.
The compensation of directors may be changed from time to time by the Board of Directors without
stockholder approval.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 27, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 50631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19804]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Mental Health; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a correction in Interagency Autism 
Coordinating Committee (IACC), Services Subcommittee Conference Call 
and Webinar, September 15, 2008, 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., which was 
published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2008, 73 FR 47958.
    The correct meeting access code is 3857872. Everything else remains 
the same.

    Dated: August 20, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-19804 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Schedule of  C&F Financial Corporation



 EXHIBIT 10.14 
  
 C&F FINANCIAL CORPORATION 
  

SCHEDULE OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ ANNUAL COMPENSATION 
  
 Effective December 21, 2004 
  

					
	 	  	Amount

	 
	 Retainer Fees(1)
	  	 	 	 
	 Service as a Director
	  	$	6,000	 
	 Service as a Committee Chair
	  	$	1,600	 (additional)
		
	 Meeting Fees(2)
	  	 	 	 
	 Base per day
	  	$	500	 
	 Secondary meeting(s) per day
	  	$	250	 



	(1)	The retainer fees are payable in quarterly installments. 


	(2)	All non-employee directors receive a base meeting fee of $500 per day for Corporation board, Bank board or committee meeting attendance and a fee of $250 for
secondary meeting attendance for each additional Corporation board, Bank board or committee meeting held on the same day as a meeting for which the base meeting fee is paid.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [ES-956-1910-BK, Group 40, Illinois] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of filing of plat of survey; Illinois. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The survey was requested by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

*The land we surveyed is:*

## Fourth Principal Meridian, Illinois 

### T. 6 S., R. 7 W. 

The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of the fractional township boundary, the subdivisional lines and the resurvey of the lock and dam no. 24 acquisition boundary in Sections 1, 2 and 12, Township 6 South, Range 7 West, of the Fourth Principle Meridian, in the State of Illinois, and was accepted August 12, 2008. 

We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be available to the public as a matter of information. If BLM receives a protest against this survey, as shown on the plat, prior to the date of official filing, we will stay the filing pending our consideration of the protest. We will not officially file the plat until the day after we accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, including decisions on appeals. Copies of the plat will be made available upon request and prepayment of the reproduction fees. 

Dated: August 14, 2008. 

Ronald J. Eberle, 

Acting Chief Cadastral Surveyor.

[FR Doc. E8-19242 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
#### MODERN INVESTMENT SERVICE CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. James A. HUDSON and Maule Industries, a Corporation, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

March 9, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1954.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of National Presto Industries, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 5, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.



|                      |                        
|--------------------- | -----------------------
|Date: August 13, 2009 | /S/ M.J. COHEN         
|                      | M. J. Cohen,           
|                      | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Precision Castparts Corp. (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended July 2, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William D. Larsson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 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.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 11, 2006                            
|                                                 
|/s/ William D. Larsson                           
|William D. Larsson                               
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### MACHECA v. DUMAS.

No. 14290.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 28, 1932.

Geo. Montgomery, of New Orleans, for appellant.

James G. Schillin, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

HIGGINS, J.

This is a suit by a doctor to recover the sum of $281, the balance alleged to be due for an operation performed on and medical services rendered to the defendant’s wife. The defense is that plaintiff agreed to perform the operation and attend to defendant’s wife for a consideration of $300, including hospital expenses.

There was judgment in favor of plaintiff as prayed for, and defendant has appealed.

The defendant concedes that the judgment of the lower court is correct if his motion to remand is denied, but contends that in the interest of justice we should send the case back to the lower court for the purpose of taking the testimony of a witness who failed to appear.

When the case was called for trial on the merits below, counsel for defendant requested a continuance on the ground that Dr. M. M. Snelling, defendant’s son-in-law, of Gulfport, Miss., was an indispensable and necessary witness because he was the one with whom the plaintiff made the agreement for the defendant’s account as set forth in the answer, and that as he was absent defendant would be unable to prove up his defense. Counsel for plaintiff objected to the continuance of the case on the ground that the record showed that Dr. Snelling had not been summoned as a witness and that his testimony had not been taken, although defendant had a reasonable opportunity to do so. ■ The district judge maintained the plaintiff’s objection and ordered the case to be tried on its merits, but stated that if the defendant submitted an affidavit by Dr. Snelling and the judge felt that the testimony' he would give would be relevant, he would consider granting a new trial, particularly if any injustice had been done to defendant. The defendant neither filed a motion for a new trial nor an affidavit by Dr. Snelling as to what he would testify to.

The record shows that the suit was filed on October 20, 1931; that defendant’s answer was filed on December 1, 1931; and the case was tried on April 5, 1932. Defendant did not take the testimony of Dr. Shelling by deposition, although it appears that he had every opportunity to do so and that he also failed to summons him as a witness.

The trial . court had a discretion as to whether or not a continuance should be granted, and from the foregoing circumstances it appears to us that the judge, a quo, in no way abused his discretion or acted in any arbitrary or unreasonable manner.

Por the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
EX-10.6









	Exhibit 10.6 -  	  	Amendment
to Employment Agreement Between The First of Long Island Corporation
                              and Joseph G. Perri Dated January 1, 2005 






[THE FIRST OF LONG
ISLAND CORPORATION LETTERHEAD] 



January 1, 2005 



Mr. Joseph G. Perri
The First
National Bank of Long Island
10 Glen Head Road
Glen Head, New York  11545 



	 	           Re: 	Letter
Employment Agreement dated January 1, 2002                      (the “Agreement”)






Dear Mr. Perri: 



        This
will serve to confirm that we have agreed to the amendment of the captioned Agreement by
the addition of the following Section 11 thereto: 



        “11.
NON-SOLICITATION; CONFIDENTIALITY.  




        11.1
In consideration of the agreement by FLIC to make a Termination Payment to you under the
circumstances described in Section “4” hereof, and regardless of whether you
shall actually become entitled to receive a Termination Payment, you agree that, for a
period of two (2) years after the termination of your employment by FLIC, you will not (i)
on behalf of any banking organization or lender doing business in New York City or in the
Counties of Nassau or Suffolk, directly or indirectly solicit the business of any person
or entity which shall be a customer of the Bank on the date of such termination or
facilitate or assist in the development of any business relationship between any such
banking organization or lender and any such customer or (ii) either directly or on behalf
of any such banking organization or lender, employ, retain, or solicit the employment or
retention of, any person who shall be an employee of the Bank on the date of such
termination. 



        11.2
You agree, without limitation as to time, to keep secret and retain in confidence all
confidential matters of FLIC and the Bank, whether developed by FLIC, the Bank or you,
including, without limitation, “know-how,” trade secrets, customer lists,
pricing policies, and operational methods, and not to disclose them to anyone outside of
FLIC or the Bank except in the course of performing your duties hereunder or with the
express written consent of FLIC. 



        11.3
If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any covenant contained herein is
unreasonable because of its term or territorial scope, or for any other reason, we agree
that such court may reform the condition of such covenant so that it is reasonable under
the circumstances and this covenant, as reformed, shall be enforceable.” 



        Please
confirm that the foregoing accurately sets forth our understanding by signing and
returning the enclosed copy of this letter. The Agreement will thereupon be deemed amended
in the foregoing respects. 



			       Very
      truly yours,

      

             THE FIRST OF LONG ISLAND CORPORATION

      

      

      By: /s/ Michael N. Vittorio

             ——————————————

             Michael N. Vittorio, President






21 




 







ACCEPTED AND AGREED: 








/s/ Joseph G. Perri

——————————————
JOSEPH G. PERRI 




Enclosure 



22
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 169 (Friday, August 29, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50955-50956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13173-000]


FFP Ohio River 21, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Applications 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

August 22, 2008.
    On March 25, 2008, FFP Ohio River 21, LLC each filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Ohio River 21 Project, to be 
located on the Ohio River in Ohio County, Indiana and Boone County, 
Kentucky.
    The proposed Ohio River 21 Project consists of: (1) 1,020 proposed 
20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total installed 
capacity of 20.4 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3) 
appurtenant facilities. The FFP Ohio River 21, LLC, project would have 
an average annual generation of 89.35 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a 
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Ohio River 21, LLC, 69 Bridge 
Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone (978) 232-3536.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) 502-6062.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight

[[Page 50956]]

copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13173) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-20049 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Agreement between Royce Biomedical Inc.("Royce") and GEV 2000

                   KFT ("GEV") dated the 1st day of March 2005

Pursuant to a certain Promissory Note dated September 30, 2002, ("Note"),
between Royce Biomedical Inc. ("Royce") and XILI USA Inc. ("XILI") and the
acquisition of the Note by Curvelo Trade & Finance Ltd. ("Curvelo") from XILI,
that on February 14, 2005, GEV 2000 KFT ("GEV") has acquired $4,000.00 of the
said Note.

Whereas GEV has demanded payment from Royce in the amount of $4,000.00 on
February 28, 2005;

Whereas Royce acknowledges that the $4,000.00 is due to GEV and further that
Royce acknowledges that it is in default of the terms of the said Note;

NOW THEREFORE, GEV agrees to accept and Royce agrees to issue four million
(4,000,000) Shares of its Common Stock on March 1, 2005 in the full settlement
of the $4,000.00 amount due. These shares shall be fully paid and non-assessable
and will contain the following legend:

         The shares of stock represented by this agreement have not been
registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act) nor under any applicable
state securities act and may not be offered or sold except pursuant to (i) an
effective registration statement relating to such stock under the 1933 Act and
any applicable state securities act, (ii) to the extent applicable, Rule 144
under the 1933 Act (or any similar rule under such act or acts relating to the
disposition of securities), or (iii) an opinion of counsel satisfactory to the
Corporation that an exemption from registration under Act or Acts is available.

/s/ Zsuzsa Horvath Gyozone                         /s/ Donald Gee
----------------------------                       -----------------------------
GEV 2000 KFT                                       Royce Biomedical Inc.
#### Patrice A. O’Neill et al., Respondents, v John Rogers et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated March 18, 1989, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

A review of the record demonstrates that the plaintiff Patrice Ann O’Neill has failed to establish a prima facie case that she sustained "serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). While the plaintiffs submitted two medical reports in which the examining physicians characterized her alleged disability as "permanent”, these reports were prepared over five years prior to the defendants’ motion and, accordingly, were not premised upon any recent medical examination of the plaintiff *(see, Covington v Cinnirella,*146 AD2d 565; *see also, Philpotts v Petrovic,*160 AD2d 856). Moreover, neither report provides more than a series of conclusory assertions with regard to the plaintiff Patrice Ann O’Neill’s alleged "permanent partial disability” *(see, Lopez v Senatore,*65 NY2d 1017, 1019) and neither quantifies with adequate specificity the extent to which her range of movement is allegedly limited *(see, Philpotts v Petrovic, supra).*Her continuing subjective complaints of occasional or recurrent pain cannot suffice to establish serious injury under the statute *(see, Philpotts v Petrovic, supra; Phillips v Costa,*160 AD2d 855; *see also, Scheer v Koubek,*70 NY2d 678; *Konco v E.T.C. Leasing Corp.,*160 AD2d 680; *Delfino v Davey,*159 AD2d 604). Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and O’Brien, JJ., concur.