alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 4, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

United States Department of Labor,

Petitioner,

v.

WYNNEWOOD REFINING

COMPANY,

Respondent.

No. 09-9504

(Petition for Enforcement)

DECREE ENFORCING FINAL ORDERS OF THE OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

This matter is before the court on the application of the Secretary of Labor

(Secretary) for summary entry of judgment against Wynnewood Refining

Company (Wynnewood), enforcing three final orders of the Occupational Safety

and Health Review Commission in OSHRC Nos. 08-0549, 08-0594, and 08-0677.

The final orders are incorporated in three settlement agreements between the

Secretary and Wynnewood, each dated September 15, 2008. We have reviewed

the Secretary’s petition, Wynnewood’s answer, and the Secretary’s reply. The
pleadings and record establish that the Secretary is entitled to summary

enforcement of the final orders.

WHEREFORE, pursuant to Section 11(b) of the Occupational Safety and

Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 660(b), it is hereby:

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Commission’s three

final orders are enforced and that Wynnewood shall comply with those orders by:

1. Complying with all abatement measures set forth in the citations for

inspections nos. 310998109, 311001226, and 311001234, as amended by the

settlement agreements dated September 15, 2008; and

2. Complying with all the terms of the settlement agreements dated

September 15, 2008.

Entered

for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

-2-
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

Board of Trustees
Archstone Communities Trust

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re: Registration Statements Nos. 333-43723, 333-44639, 333-51139, 333-60815,
333-60817, 333-60847 and 333-68591.

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated April 25, 2000 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered a part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

                                 KPMG LLP

Chicago, Illinois
May 9, 2000
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-76-01-PB

Daniel A. Espaillat

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the July 6, 2005 trial

in the above case. Defendant cites a scheduling conflict with

the trial date and the need for additional time to address

sentencing issues and prepare a defense. The government does not

object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from July 6, 2006 to October 4, 2005. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the 

Case 1:05-cr-00076-PB Document 10 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 2
2

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

The June 27, 2005 final pretrial conference is continued

until September 27, 2005 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 24, 2005

cc: Ray Raimo, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00076-PB Document 10 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 2
[No. 34280.

Department Two.

November 21, 1957.]

#### Lempco Products, Inc., *Appellant,*v. Leonard T. Phillips *et al., Respondents.**1*

*Eddleman & Wheeler (Arnold B. Robbins,*of counsel), for appellant.

*Frederick W. Post,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 317 P. (2d) 1060.

Mallery, J.

The plaintiff’s agent and the defendants entered into an oral agreement for the delivery of a piston-reamer machine on trial, which the defendants agreed to buy if it proved satisfactory.

The defendants found the machine unsatisfactory, and this action was brought to recover the purchase price. From a judgment for the defendants, the plaintiff appeals.

The appellant introduced a “sales order” in evidence, which was executed at the time of the delivery of the machine and was signed by the respondent Leonard T. Phillips.

*335The appellant contends that the written “sales order” is integrated with the oral contract, and that the absence of a provision therein for trial and approval of the machine results in the sale being absolute.

The appellant then argues that the oral testimony regarding the trial of the machine contradicts the “sales order” and is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule.

The trial court admitted testimony to the effect that the respondents had a right to try out the machine as a condition precedent to the conclusion of a sale.

If an oral condition is in fact a *condition precedent*to the formation of a contract, oral testimony regarding it is not barred by the parol evidence rule. In *Fleming v. August,*48 Wn. (2d) 131, 291 P. (2d) 639, we said:

> “We think the test is this: If the parties agree that the contract shall not be a binding obligation until some event occurs, it is delivered upon a condition precedent. On the other hand, if it is agreed that the contract will cease to be binding if some event occurs in the future, then it is delivered upon a condition subsequent, and parol evidence of the agreement would not be admissible because it would vary the terms of and contradict the written contract.”

The trial court’s finding that the respondents had a right to try out the machine and was a condition precedent to a binding contract is supported by the record. Accordingly, we hold that the parol evidence rule did not bar the admission of the evidence in question.

, The appellant contends the court erred in admitting evidence of the existence of defects in the machine at the time it was delivered, for the reason that they were not pleaded and, hence, were not an issue in the case.

We think the evidence was relevant to the question of the reasonableness of the respondents’ dissatisfaction with the machine, a satisfactory tryout of which was the condition precedent to the sale.

The judgment is affirmed.

Hill, C. J., Donworth, Rosellini, and Foster, JJ., concur.

January 24,1958. Petition for rehearing denied.
Description of Non-Management Director Compensation Arrangements



 Exhibit 10.35 
  
 Trimeris, Inc. 
 Description of Non-Management Director Compensation Arrangements 
  
 Following is a description of the compensation arrangements for each of the Company’s non-management directors. We reimburse our directors for all reasonable and necessary travel and other incidental expenses incurred in connection
with their attendance at meetings of the Board. In addition, all eligible non-management directors, except the Chairman, automatically receive a grant of an option on the date of our annual meeting to purchase 10,000 shares of common stock. The
Chairman automatically receives a grant of an option on the date of our annual meeting to purchase 15,000 shares of common stock. In addition, all eligible non-employee directors serving as members of the Compensation and Governance Committee or
Audit and Finance Committee, except the directors serving as chairmen of these committees, receive an option on the date of our annual meeting to purchase 1,250 shares of common stock. The directors serving as chairmen of these committees each
receive a grant of an option at the date of our annual meeting to purchase 2,500 shares of common stock. These options have an exercise price equal to 100% of the fair market value of our common stock on the grant date and become exercisable after
the completion of one year of service following the grant. Newly-elected directors are granted an option to purchase 20,000 shares of common stock, with the options vesting ratably over the three years. These options have an exercise price equal to
100% of the fair market value of our common stock on the grant date. Members of our Nominating Committee do not receive any compensation for serving on this committee.
#### Gandy *v.*Pinkerton, Appellant.

Argued Jan. 15, 1908.

Appeal, No. 355, Jan. T., 1907, by defendant, from judgment- of Superior Court, Oct. T., 1906, No. 33, affirming order of C. P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1905, No. 860, making absolute rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense in case of George S. Gandy v. William W. Pinkerton.

Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Reversed.

March 2, 1908:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Brown,

The question involved in this appeal is the same as that raised and disposed of in Gandy v. Weckerly, ante, p. 285, in which we have this day filed an opinion. For the reasons therein given the judgment of the Superior Court is reversed, as is that of the common pleas, and procedendo awarded.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-117-01-PB

Richard Hawes

O R D E R

The defendant has moved to continue the November 1, 2005

trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time to

prepare a defense or other disposition of the case. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from November 1, 2005 to February 7, 2006. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:05-cr-00117-PB Document 13 Filed 10/17/05 Page 1 of 2
2

The October 17, 2005 final pretrial conference is continued

until January 19, 2005 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

October 17, 2005

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Helen Fitzgibbon, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00117-PB Document 13 Filed 10/17/05 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6979 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6979

 To support a review of surcharge policy at the International Monetary 
                                 Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 8, 2022

  Mr. Garcia of Illinois (for himself and Ms. Jayapal) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To support a review of surcharge policy at the International Monetary 
                                 Fund.

    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 ``Stop Onerous Surcharges Act''.

SEC. 2. UNITED STATES SUPPORT FOR A REVIEW OF SURCHARGE POLICY AT THE 
              INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND.

    The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States 
Executive Director at the International Monetary Fund (in this section 
referred to as the ``IMF'') to use the vote and the voice of the United 
States at the IMF to support--
            (1) an immediate review by the IMF of the surcharge 
        policies of the IMF; and
            (2) a suspension of the imposition or collection of 
        surcharge payments while the review is underway.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-61-01-SM

Rebecca Bally

O R D E R

Defendant Bally’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 10). Trial has been rescheduled for the May 2006 trial

period. Defendant Bally shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later than

March 3, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, her continuance shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: April 24, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

Jury Selection: May 2, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00061-SM Document 11 Filed 02/23/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

February 23, 2006

cc: Donald Kennedy, Esq.

Mark Irish, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00061-SM Document 11 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.34



 Exhibit 10.34 
  
 Schedule 
 Setting Forth Information on 
 Twenty Additional and Substantially Identical Environmental Indemnity Agreements 
  
 (Except as set forth below, documents are substantially identical to the

 document included as Exhibit 10.33 of this filing, except for immaterial variations) 
  

								
	 Location

	  	 Borrower (Preamble)

	  	 Principal Sum
 (Recitals)

	  	 Pool Number
 (Cover Page)


	 Greensboro, North Carolina
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	4,875,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Lubbock, Texas
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	2,500,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Akron/Copley Ohio
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	5,460,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Kalamazoo, Michigan
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	3,938,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Clearwater/St. Petersburg, Florida
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	3,540,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Boston/Danvers, Massachusetts
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	4,620,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Irvine, California
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	12,750,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Arcadia, California
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	14,850,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Chicago-Deerfield, Illinois
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	8,100,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Memphis, Tennessee
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	2,535,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Birmingham, Alabama
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$	5,573,000.00	  	Pool 1

  










							
	 Placentia, California
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$7,650,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Pensacola, Florida
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$3,540,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Santa Fe, New Mexico
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$8,050,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Boca Raton, Florida
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$3,750,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Columbia/Spartanburg, South Carolina
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$4,380,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Philadelphia/Berwyn, Pennsylvania
	  	Marriott Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$5,979,000.00	  	Pool 2
	 Las Vegas, Nevada
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$20,625,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Shreveport/Bossier City, Louisiana
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$4,050,000.00	  	Pool 1
	 Jackson, Mississippi
	  	AHT Residence Inn II Limited Partnership	  	$3,360,000.00	  	Pool 1
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

        Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18
                            of the United States Code

     I, E. James Ferland, Chief Executive Officer of Public Service Enterprise
Group Incorporated, to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly
Report of Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the "Periodic Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated.


                                   /s/ E. James Ferland
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   E. James Ferland
                                   Public Service Enterprise Group Incorporated
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   April 30, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Eugene Gayda

v. Civil No. 05-cv-244-JD

City of Nashua, et al.

O R D E R

In anticipation of trial, the defendants move to preclude

Eugene Gayda from introducing evidence of other incidents when

Nashua Fire Rescue officers entered private residences to inspect

for smoke detectors without proper consent. The defendants argue

that such evidence is irrelevant because the same officers were

not involved in the other incidents and it is “more prejudicial

than probative.” They also contend that determining whether the

alleged other incidents occurred would require trying another

case within this case. Gayda objects to the motion. 

 To succeed on his claim against Nashua, Gayda must prove

that Philip Chouinard entered his apartment, without his consent

or a warrant, as the result of a custom or practice in Nashua

that was “so widespread or pervasive that the policymakers must

have had actual or constructive notice of it, yet did nothing to

modify it.” Surprenant v. Rivas, 424 F.3d 5, 19 (1st Cir. 2005). 

Gayda responds that he intends to introduce evidence of other

entries by Nashua Fire Rescue officers, without proper consent or

Case 1:05-cv-00244-JD Document 17 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 3
2

a warrant, to show a custom or practice by the city condoning or

allowing such conduct. He contends that such evidence is

relevant to show the city’s liability for the Fourth Amendment

violation that he alleges occurred in this case. 

The defendants argue, without evidentiary support or

citation to authority, that the few incidents Gayda cites are not

relevant because they did not involve Chouinard, were not related

to the events at issue in this case, and are more “prejudicial

than probative” because of the small number of incidents. 

Whether Nashua adhered to a custom or practice of allowing

unlawful inspections does not require that the same officers be

involved in each incident. As to the small number of unlawful

incidents, if the defendants were able to show that “hundreds or

even thousands of inspections have occurred without incident” and

that those inspections were all conducted lawfully, Gayda’s few

contrary examples might be insufficient, as a matter of law, to

meet the requirement of a widespread or pervasive custom or

practice. The defendants, however, have not made that showing. 

Therefore, evidence of unlawful entries remains probative of

whether Nashua had such a practice or policy. While that

evidence is no doubt prejudicial, the defendants have not shown

that it is unfairly so. See United States v. Barrow, 448 F.3d

37, 43 (1st Cir. 2006).

Case 1:05-cv-00244-JD Document 17 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 3
3

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion in limine

(document no. 12) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 4, 2006

cc: Brian J.S. Cullen, Esquire

Fred K. Mayer, III, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00244-JD Document 17 Filed 10/04/06 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 177 (Thursday, September 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52887-52888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21028]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

National Institute of Corrections


Advisory Board Meeting

    Time and Date: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, October 6, 2008. 8 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 7, 2008.
    Place: Federal Correctional Complex, P.O. Box 1600, Butner, North 
Carolina 27509, Phone: 919.575.3900.
    Status: Open.
    Matters To Be Considered: The Advisory Board Members will tour the 
Federal Correctional Institution -1 and the Federal Medical Center; 
Presentations on Behavioral Health, multitude of behavioral health 
programs and operations across the complex; Agency Reports; Video 
presentation by the Director of Office of Justice Program's Smart 
Office on the Adam Walsh Act; U.S. Parole Commission; American 
Corrections Association; Federal Judicial Center.

[[Page 52888]]

    Contact Person for More Information: Thomas Beauclair, Deputy 
Director, 202-307-3106, ext. 44254.

Morris L. Thigpen,
Director.
[FR Doc. E8-21028 Filed 9-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-36-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TREMAIN MONROE,

Defendant.

8:23MJ251

ORDER

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed by the 

above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. After a review of 

the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is eligible for appointment 

of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended 

Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska.

IT IS ORDERED:

The Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska is appointed to 

represent the above named defendant in this matter. In the event that the Federal 

Public Defender accepts this appointment, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith 

file an appearance in this matter. In the event the Federal Public Defender should 

decline this appointment for reason of conflict or on the basis of the Criminal Justice Act 

Plan, the Federal Public Defender shall forthwith provide the court with a draft 

appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the name and other identifying information of 

the CJA Panel attorney identified in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for 

this district.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to 

the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska.

DATED this 4th day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ F.A. Gossett, III

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-mj-00251-SMB Doc # 14 Filed: 05/04/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 36