alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Samaco East, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Town of Clay Zoning Board of Appeals, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioners sought to expand the seating capacity of their restaurant by constructing a greenhouse-type addition in front of the structure. They applied to respondent Board for an area variance permitting further encroachment on the arterial highway setback requirement of the zoning ordinance by 15 feet and encroachment on the front yard setback requirement by 7.5 feet. Petitioners presented evidence that, without the variance, business profits would remain steady or decline by as much as 15% and that, with the variance, profits would increase by 10%. They further asserted that, although the restaurant structure could be expanded to the rear, this alternative was not feasible because it would require relocation and reconstruction of the kitchen and would cost nearly $200,000 more than the proposed expansion in the front yard. The construction of an additional dining room in the rear was, in petitioners’ view, impractical because that would involve *896two separate dining rooms and increased managerial problems. Following a hearing and rehearing, respondent denied the application upon the ground that petitioners failed to demonstrate that strict application of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of their property *(see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441, 445). Supreme Court confirmed that determination.

There is no merit to petitioners’ contentions that strict application of the ordinance would cause them significant economic injury or that the Board’s finding that public safety and welfare warranted denial of an area variance was not supported by the evidence. The fact that property can obtain a greater profit with the requested variance is not a sufficient basis for the grant of an area variance *(see, Matter of Orchard Michael, Inc. v Falcon,*110 AD2d 1048, *affd*65 NY2d 1007; *Matter of CDK Rest. v Krucklin,*118 AD2d 851). Moreover, the grant of an area variance is not required where the alleged difficulty may be avoided by resort to feasible alternatives *(see, Gottlieb v Board of Appeals,*139 AD2d 617; *Matter of Wachsberger v Michalis,*19 Misc 2d 909, 912). Respondent rejected petitioners’ assertion that construction of two separate dining rooms was impractical and not feasible, concluding that petitioners’ position amounted to no more than a business preference. We find that there was a rational basis for that conclusion and that the Board’s determination should be upheld *(see, Gottlieb v Board of Appeals, supra).*Because petitioners failed to prove significant economic injury, the Board was not obliged to explain why the public health and welfare required adherence to the zoning ordinance *(see, Matter of Orchard Michael, Inc. v Falcon,*110 AD2d 1048, *supra; Matter of McLaren v Schick,*112 AD2d 732). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J.—art 78.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
#### M.A. MORTENSON COMPANY, Appellant, v. Les BROWNLEE, Acting Secretary of the Army, Appellee.

No. 03-1276.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

July 28, 2003.

ORDER

Appellant having submitted the required brief,* and it appearing that the appeal was dismissed in error, it is ORDERED that the order of dismissal and the mandate be, and the same hereby are, VACATED and RECALLED, and the notice of appeal is REINSTATED.

The Appellee should compute the due date for its brief from the date of filing of this order.

*

The brief postmarked on July 11, 2003, was received in the Clerk’s Office on July 21, 2003.
Exhibit 10.28


Summary of Director Compensation Policies


Retainers and Fees.  Non-employee directors serving on the board of directors of West Coast Bancorp (“Bancorp”) are paid annual retainers for board service and fees for committee participation.  The chairman of the board of directors and each committee chair recieve cash compensation of $26,000 per year.  Each other director receives annual cash compensation of $20,000.  All directors also receive $200 for each committee meeting that they attend, either as a member of a committee or at the request of a committee.  Directors who also serve on the board of directors of Bancorp’s subsidiary, West Coast Trust Company, Inc. (“West Coast Trust”), also receive $200 for each meeting of the board of directors of West Coast Trust.  The chairman of the West Coast Trust board receives an additional $1,000 per year.


Directors who are employees of Bancorp or the Bank receive no fees for their services as directors.


Equity Incentive Awards.  Directors are entitled to participate in Bancorp’s 2002 Stock Incentive Plan.  Recent practice has been to grant all directors a fully-vested option to purchase shares of Bancorp’s common stock on an annual basis.  In 2004, continuing directors were granted a fully vested option to purchase 2,350 shares with an exercise price equal to the market price on the date of grant.  The type of award, number of shares to be granted each year, and terms of each award are at the discretion of the Board of Directors.


Reimbursement and Fees for Attendance at Director Education Programs.  Directors are entitled to payment or reimbursement of all out of pocket costs of attendance at approved director education programs.  In addition, Bancorp will compensate directors for time spent at education programs at a rate of $200 per each day (or partial day) spent at an approved program.


Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan.  Non-employee directors are also entitled to participate in Bancorp’s Directors’ Deferred Compensation Plan (“Directors’ DCP”).  Under the Directors’ DCP, directors may elect to defer payment of some or all of their directors’ fees.  Contributions are transferred to a so-called “rabbi trust” and may be invested in a number of investment funds or in Bancorp common stock.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               4,877
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       15,831
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                          8,103
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    30,514
<PP&E>                                               4,420
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      51,164
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               18,582
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                93
<OTHER-SE>                                          12,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        51,164
<SALES>                                             30,943
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    30,943
<CGS>                                               17,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        9,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   1,782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      1,483
<INCOME-TAX>                                           200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  1,207
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         76
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         1,283
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.13
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 50 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  Union Calendar No. 84
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 50

                          [Report No. 107-145]

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 
 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic 
                               of China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2001

  Mr. Rohrabacher (for himself and Mr. Brown of Ohio) introduced the 
following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 
                               and Means

                             July 18, 2001

 Reported adversely; committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 
 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic 
                               of China.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress does not 
approve the extension of the authority contained in section 402(c) of 
the Trade Act of 1974 recommended by the President to the Congress on 
June 1, 2001, with respect to the People's Republic of China.

                                                  Union Calendar No. 84

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                             H. J. RES. 50

                          [Report No. 107-145]

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 
 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to the People's Republic 
                               of China.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 18, 2001

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 
                       and ordered to be printed
```
ReadMe

The sample data include two data sets:

1. Pittsburgh monthly crimes by tract 1990‐99.dbf – these data include the number of

Part I crimes committed by census tract each month in Pittsburgh between 1990 and

1999.  Each record represents a separate tract and month.  The variables are:

A. TRACT – the census tract number

B. X – the X coordinate of the centroid of the tract (projected coordinates , feet)

C. Y – the Y coordinate of the centroid of the tract (projected coordinates , feet)

D. YEAR – the year in which the count occurred

E. MONTH – the month of the year in which the count occurred (1 – January through

12 – December)

F. PART1CRIME – the number of Part I crimes committed in the tract for a particular

month.

2. Pittsburgh weekly crimes by tract 1990‐99.dbf ‐ these data include the number of Part I

crimes committed by census tract each week in Pittsburgh between 1990 and 1999.  

Each record represents a separate tract and week.  The variables are:

G. TRACT – the census tract number

H. X – the X coordinate of the centroid of the tract (projected coordinates , feet)

I. Y – the Y coordinate of the centroid of the tract (projected coordinates , feet)

J. YEAR – the year in which the count occurred

K. WEEK – the week of the year in which the count occurred.  The first week of the year

(January 1 – January 7) is listed as 1 while the last week of the year is listed as 52.  

Note that one or two days are dropped and that there is no week 53.

L. PART1CRIME – the number of Part I crimes committed in the tract for a particular

month.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 25, 2010

p0517 

# Order

May 25, 2010

140566

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140566 COA: 293969 Oakland CC: 2008-222269-FH DONALD DARON MABIN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 14, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    Form 13F

                               Form 13F COVER PAGE

Report for the Calendar Year or Quarter Ended:  September 30, 1999

Check here if Amendment [    ]; Amendment Number: ____
    This Amendment (Check only one.): [    ] is a restatement.
                                      [    ] adds new holdings entries.

Institutional Investment Manager Filing this Report:

Name:      Saudi American Bank
Address:   Old Airport Road
           Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia

Form 13F File Number:              28-7564

The institutional investment manager filing this report and the person by whom
it is signed hereby represent that the person signing the report is authorized
to submit it, that all information contained herein is true, correct and
complete, and that it is understood that all required items, statements,
schedules, lists, and tables, are considered integral parts of this form.

Person Signing this Report on Behalf of Reporting Manager:

Name:      Abdulrahman Sadhan
Title:     Corporate Secretary
Phone:     96614774770 ext. 1292

Signature, Place, and Date of Signing:

/s/ Abdulrahman Sadhan         Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia    November 12, 1999
----------------------

Report Type (Check only one.):

[   ] 13F  HOLDINGS  REPORT.   (Check  here  if  all  holdings  of  this
      reporting manager are reported in this report.)

[ X ] 13F NOTICE. (Check here if no holdings reported are in this report,
      and all holdings are reported by other reporting manager(s).)

[   ] 13F COMBINATION REPORT. (Check here if a portion of the holdings for
      this reporting manager are reported in this report and a portion are
      reported by other reporting manager(s).)

List of Other Managers Reporting for this Manager:

Form 13F File Number 28-2427
Name:  Citigroup Inc.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Donald Morgan, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contentions that the court erred in its charge on reasonable doubt and on assessing the credibility of a police officer witness were not preserved for review and do not require reversal in the interest of justice. Although the court inappropriately referred to “equally balanced scales” in discussing reasonable doubt, the court’s charge, when viewed as a whole, conveyed the proper legal standards *(see, People v Hartle,*151 AD2d 1003, *lv denied*74 NY2d 810; *People v Cooper,*147 AD2d 926, 927, *lv denied*74 NY2d 738). On this record, defendant’s sentence is not excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J.—burglary, third degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
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




In
connection with the accompanying report on Form 10–K for the period ended
December 31, 2009 of EV Energy, L.P. (the “Partnership”) and filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
E. Mercer, Chief Financial Officer of EV Management, LLC, the general partner of
EV Energy GP, L.P., the general partner of the Partnership, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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





•
              the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Partnership.




Date:
      March 16, 2010
              /s/ MICHAEL E. MERCERMichael
      E. MercerChief
      Financial Officer of EV Management LLC,general
      partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,general
      partner of EV Energy Partners,
L.P.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

RICHARD HERBERT, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3601

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed March 20, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Manatee County; Lee E. Haworth, 

Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 938.30, Fla. Stat. (2018).

NORTHCUTT, SALARIO, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM,JJ., Concur.
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 Indian Affairs

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Indian Affairs published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 8, 2008, concerning the amended Jicarilla Apache Nation Liquor Ordinance. The document contained an incorrect ordinance number.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date*: This correction is effective as of September 10, 2008.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Colliflower, Office of Tribal Services, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 4513-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202) 513-7640; Fax (202) 208-5113.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 8, 2008, in FR Doc. E8-18287, on page 46326, in the first column, correct the number of the Ordinance to read:                    

Ordinance No. 2007-O-525-12.

Dated: September 2, 2008.

George T. Skibine,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Economic Development.

 [FR Doc. E8-20949 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-4J-P
#### Henry and Warren Corporation, Petitioner, v David Axelrod, as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, dated November 25, 1987, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application to increase the capital cost components of the Cobble Hill Nursing Home’s Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Commissioner’s decision to rely upon departmental audits in arriving at the historical cost of the facility which houses the nursing home operated by the petitioner is supported by substantial evidence *(see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 181), and thus resort to the comparative analysis approach was unnecessary *(see,*10 NYCRR 86-2.21 [a] [6]; [g]). The facility in question was comprised of two buildings built in 1966 and 1972, respectively. In determining the cost of the 1966 building, the New York State Department of *355Health relied on the cost report submitted by the operator of the facility and an audit report performed by a Department auditor which accepted the figure submitted by the operator. Given that the uniform policy of the Department had been to accept the costs submitted by facilities pertaining to buildings built prior to 1967, a policy which was neither irrational nor irresponsible *(see, Matter of John P. v Whalen,*54 NY2d 89), the audit report relied upon was properly deemed satisfactory by the Commissioner.

The audit upon which the historical cost of the 1972 building was based was also properly deemed satisfactory by the Commissioner. Although one of the employees of the Department had sent a memorandum to his supervisor in 1981 asserting that the records would not permit a determination of construction costs by audit, the audit supervisor testified that despite the memorandum, there were sufficient records to support the construction cost audit performed on the 1972 building by the Department. The Administrative Judge’s decision to credit the testimony of the audit supervisor and the Commissioner’s acceptance of that decision is largely unreviewable by this court, since the duty of weighing the evidence rests solely upon the administrative agency *(see, Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 443-444). On this record, it cannot be said that this administrative decision was unsupported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Collins v Codd,*38 NY2d 269, 270).

We have reviewed the petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Hooper and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 17, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50344 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JAVIER HERRERA-FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:03-CR-623-1-AML

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Javier HerreraFlores raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.