alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ex rel. J. THOMAS ALBRIGHT and

THOMAS M. BARTON,

Plaintiff,

V.

ROBERT E. EBERHART, M.D.,

JONATHAN HOLZAEPFEL, M.D.,

THOMAS KING, M.D.,

SEACOAST TRUST,

SEACOAST TRUST, LLP, and

HEALTHSOUTH SPORTS MEDICINE &

REHABILITATION CENTER,

Defendants.

Civil No. 04-450-JD

Filed Under Seal - Level I

I PROPOSEDI ORDER

Upon consideration of the United States' unopposed motion, pursuant to the False Claims

Act, 31 U.S.C . § 3730(b)(3), for an additional extension of time from March 20, 2006, to and

including June 19, 2006, to determine whether or not to intervene in the above-captioned action

and during which the Complaint and other filings shall remain under seal, as well as the United

States' request for a partial lifting of the seal, it is hereby

ORDERED that the United States shall have until and including June 19, 2006, to

intervene in the above-captioned action or to notify the Court that it declines to do so ; and

FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint and all other filings shall remain under seal

until and including June 19, 2006, upon order of this Court, unless the United States requests that

the seal be lifted prior to that date ; and

FURTHER ORDERED that the seal is partially lifted so that the United States may

disclose the existence of and/or the contents of the Complaint to the defendants and their

counsel .

UNiTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated:

Case 1:04-cv-00450-JD Document 11 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Doris K. Morin, Appellant, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Irvington et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Irvington, dated May 19, 1987, which denied the petitioner’s application for an area variance, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered July 6, 1988, which dismissed the proceeding. The appeal brings up for review so much of an order of the same court, entered October 26, 1988, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination *(see,*CPLR 5517 [b]).

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that judgment was superseded by the order, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the judgment is vacated, the petition is granted to the extent of annulling the determination under review, and the matter is remitted to the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Irving-ton, which is directed to grant the application for the area variance upon such conditions as it deems appropriate.

We agree with the petitioner that she is entitled to the requested area variance under the doctrine of single and *390separate ownership *(see, Matter of MacKay v Mayhall,*92 Misc 2d 868). In the matter at hand, the subject parcel was joined at the rear with another plot owned by the petitioner, thus forming a "back to back split” *(see, Matter of McDermott v Rose,*148 AD2d 615, 616; *Matter of Barretto v Zoning Bd. of Appeals,*123 AD2d 692). Inasmuch as the petitioner established that both parcels have frontage on separate streets *(see, Matter of Guazzo v Chave,*59 Misc 2d 1050), meet the depth characteristics of the area as it has developed *(see, Matter of Scavone v Volz,*34 AD2d 966; *Matter of Guazzo v Chave, supra),*and were never used in conjunction with each other *(see, Matter of McDermott v Rose, supra; Matter of Barretto v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra; Hemlock Dev. Corp. v McGuire,*35 AD2d 567; *cf., Barrett v Rose,*152 AD2d 525), the denial of the area variance was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion *(see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Irvington with the direction that it grant the application to the extent indicated.

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Rubin, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT  32.7**

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

I, Thomas M. O’Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C., to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (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 PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.

 

|   |   |   |                                                                                   |
|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|        |   |   | /s/ Thomas M. O’Flynn                                                             |
|   |   |   |                                                                                        |
|   |   |   | Thomas M. O’FlynnPSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.Chief Financial OfficerAugust 1, 2003 |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 70 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.J.Res.70

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                            Joint Resolution

 
 Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2002, and 
                           for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 107-44 is 
further amended by striking the date specified in section 107(c) and 
inserting in lieu thereof ``November 16, 2001''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-8714-3] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        This document announces the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) responses to Agency Clearance requests, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501*et seq.*). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Rick Westlund (202) 566-1682, or e-mail at                         *westlund.rick@epa.gov*                         and please refer to the appropriate EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) Number.                     

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## OMB Responses to Agency Clearance Requests 

### OMB Approvals 

EPA ICR Number 1669.05; Lead-Based Paint Pre-Renovation Information Dissemination—TSCA Section 406(b); in 40 CFR part 735, subpart E; was approved 08/14/2008; OMB Number 2070-0158; expires 08/31/2011. 

Dated: September 8, 2008. 

Sara Hisel-McCoy, 

Director, Collection Strategies Division.

[FR Doc. E8-21314 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Jensen, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), imposed June 3, 1983, the resentence being four concurrent indeterminate terms of *IVi*to 15 years’ imprisonment imposed upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (three counts), to run concurrently to two concurrent indeterminate terms of 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment upon his conviction of burglary in the first degree, and burglary in the second degree, respectively, after a jury verdict.

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the People satisfied their burden at the second felony offender hearing by establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the defendant’s previous felony conviction *(see,*CPL 400.21). Once the fact of the prior conviction was established, it was then incumbent upon the defendant to prove the facts underlying his claim that the conviction was unconstitutionally obtained *(see, People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9, 15; *People v Thompson,*140 AD2d 652; *People v Fox,*117 AD2d 818; *People v Anderson,*100 AD2d 937). Moreover, the presumptions of the validity and regularity of previous convictions must be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary *(see, People v Harris, supra; People v Thompson, supra).*Applying these principles to the instant case, however, we conclude that the defendant failed to meet his burden, as the record supports the hearing *421court’s determination that the voluntariness of the guilty plea upon which the prior conviction was based was not affected by his alleged intoxication or by any alleged coercion exerted by his attorney.

The defendant’s additional contention that the concurrent sentences imposed upon him on the three lesser counts of robbery in the second degree were excessive because they will penalize him in terms of his eligibility for parole is academic since he has already been paroled. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Rubin, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-30435 (Summary Calendar)

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ALFRED HENRY, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

(USDC No. 93-CR-20001)

- - - - - - - - - - December 7, 1995 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of a machinegun in relation to a drug trafficking crime. He argues that he was entitled to downward departures for providing substantial assistance to the Government and for reduced mental capacity and that the Government breached the plea agreement. We have reviewed the record and the reasoning of the district court and find no reversible error. Thus, essentially for the reasons2

stated orally by the district court at the hearing held on April 27, 1995, and in the written ruling issued the same day, the conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 10.20

                                IMAX CORPORATION


                       SUMMARY OF DIRECTORS' COMPENSATION

In respect of each year during which an eligible director serves as a director
of the Corporation, he shall receive:

     1.   $20,000 (Cdn.) per year payable quarterly in arrears provided that an
          eligible director may elect, at the commencement of his term of
          office, or as soon as practicable thereafter, to receive such number
          of options to purchase Common Shares of the Corporation under the
          terms of the IMAX Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") as shall be
          calculated using the Black Scholes Option Valuation Model, at an
          exercise price equal to the Fair Market Value of the shares, as
          defined in the Plan. The options will be granted annually and will
          vest in equal amounts quarterly, in arrears;

     2.   $1,500 (Cdn.) for every Board meeting attended in person together with
          $750 (Cdn.) for every telephone Board meeting in which he
          participates;

     3.   $750 (Cdn.) for any Committee of the Board meetings in which the
          Eligible Director participates, whether in person or by telephone;

     4.   at the commencement of each year, or as soon as practicable
          thereafter, a grant of options to purchase 8,000 Common Shares of the
          Corporation under the terms of the IMAX Stock Option Plan at an
          exercise price equal to the Fair Market Value of the shares, as
          defined in the Plan, on the date on which the Eligible Director joins
          IMAX's Board; and

     5.   reimbursement of any expenses incurred by the Eligible Director in
          connection with participation in Board or Committee meetings.




                                                                    June 7, 2001
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 Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Ad Hoc IRS Forms and Publications/Language Services Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. 

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Tuesday, October 14, 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sallie Chavez at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Ad Hoc IRS Forms and Publications/Language Services Issue Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Tuesday, October 14, 2008, at 2 p.m. Eastern Time via a telephone conference call. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7979, or write Sallie Chavez, TAP Office, 1000 South Pine Island Road, Suite 340, Plantation, FL 33324. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone conference call meeting must be made with Sallie Chavez. Ms. Chavez can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 954-423-7977, or you can post comments to the Web site:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                 

                    The agenda will include:                     *Various IRS issues*.                 

Dated: August 29, 2008. 

Roy L. Block, 

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

 [FR Doc. E8-20944 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
**
Exhibit 31.1 

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

**CERTIFICATION**

I, KevinJ. Cullum, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Receivables 2018-B Owner Trust(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. I amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association 

Date: June 26, 2020 

 
By: 
/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
 Kevin J. Cullum President and Chief Executive Officer of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (senior officer in charge of the servicing function)**
#### Emily Rizzo, Respondent, v James J. Rizzo, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis GangelJacob, J.), entered on or about February 8, 1990, which, *inter alia,*directed defendant husband to pay $400 per week in pendente lite child support, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff wife in this action for divorce moved for an order granting pendente lite child support and payment of a portion of all nonreimbursed medical and educational expenses for the infant issue of the marriage, born in 1973. In his affidavit in opposition, defendant husband essentially conceded the accu*16racy of the financial information provided in the wife’s moving papers. Thus, the court had before it financial information which was undisputed, and it was upon this data that the court determined its pendente lite award. On appeal, the husband urges that it was unjust and inappropriate for the court to have applied the child support guidelines established by the Child Support Standards Act (eff Sept. 15, 1989; Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b]) in making its ruling on temporary child support.

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (7) (a), as added by the new legislation, where information with respect to the income and assets of both parents is available, "the court may make an order for temporary child support pursuant to section two hundred forty of this article.” As this language indicates, and as both parties agree, the application of the Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) guidelines, and the consideration of the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (f), are not mandatory on a pendente lite motion. It is, however, within the court’s statutory authority to be guided thereby, and this is being done with increasing frequency. *(See, e.g., Langone v Langone,*145 Misc 2d 340; *James v James,*index No. 60025/90, Sup Ct, NY County [unpublished]; *Lazarus v Lazarus,*index No. 65949/89, Sup Ct, NY County [unpublished]; *DeArakie v DeArakie,*index No. 78833/87, Sup Ct, NY County [unpublished].)

Upon examination of the record before us, we conclude that the court did not err or abuse its discretion in employing the child support guidelines to determine the parties’ respective obligations. The court’s analysis was fair, balanced, and reasonable, and it took into account the parties’ respective financial circumstances, as well as aspects of their life-styles. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the temporary child support award of $400 per week or the court’s determination with respect to medical, dental, and educational expenses. *(See, Scheuer v Scheuer,*144 AD2d 225.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
Exhibit 10.79









Exhibit
10.79




Management
Incentive Plan Outline

For
Digital Angel Corporation







Annual
Incentive Cash Bonus Plan Outline







The
Annual Incentive Cash Bonus Plan for 2005 is based upon the following metrics in
the percentages indicated:





	
      Revenue
	
      50%

	
      EBITDA
	
      0%

	
      Operating
      Income
	
      20%

	
      Cash
	
      20%

	
      Management/Board
      Disc
	
      10%







Bonuses,
if earned, based upon the established targets, would be paid at levels between a
Minimum Performance level and a Maximum Performance level. Set forth below is
the bonus award matrix, with percentages reflecting a percentage of the
executives’ salary:





	 	
      CEO
	 	
      Senior
      Execs
	 	
      Execs

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
      Minimum
	
      50%
	 	
      30%
	 	
      15%

	
      Target
	
      100%
	 	
      60%
	 	
      30%

	
      Maximum
	
      200%
	 	
      120%
	 	
      60%