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

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-100-JD

HemCon, Inc.

J U D G M E N T

In accordance with the following, judgment is hereby entered: Oral Order by United

States District Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., dated April 22, 2010 wherein the Court granted in

part Plaintiff’s Oral Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Orders dated October 27, 2009,

July 27, August 3, August 6, and September 16, 2010 also by Judge DiClerico, and the Jury

Verdicts returned on April 26, and April 29, 2010, in favor of Marine Polymer Technologies,

Inc., with interest thereon at the rate of 0.26 percent as provided by law and costs of the action, if

appropriate. 

By the Court,

/s/ Daniel J. Lynch

Daniel J. Lynch, Chief Deputy Clerk

September 22, 2010

cc: Brian Poissant, Esq.

Daniel Will, Esq.

Julie Baher, Esq. Approved as to Form:

LyndaNguyen, Esq.

Ognian Shentov, Esq.

Jonathan Shirley, Esq.

Leigh Willey, Esq. /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Celine Crowson, Esq. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Keith O’Doherty, Esq. United States District Judge

Raymond Kurz, Esq.

Rebekah Osborn, Esq.

Elizabeth Leonard, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00100-JD Document 446 Filed 09/22/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Thomas D. Callan, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 68612.)

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Court of Claims did not abuse its discretion in denying claimant’s application, made after an appeal from the final judgment, to amend the deci- sion and judgment. The court, after trial, found that there was probable cause for claimant’s arrest for possession of mari- huana, but that the prosecution was continued thereafter without probable cause, and the court made an award of damages for malicious prosecution. On appeal, this court (Denman, J. P., and Lawton, J., dissenting) agreed that the proceeding was continued without probable cause *(see, Callan v State of New York,*134 AD2d 882). The dissenters observed that "probable cause which exists at the time of arrest is not subsequently dissipated unless the accuser ' "had knowledge of some intervening fact exonerating plaintiff’ ’ ” *(Callan v State of New York,*134 AD2d 882, 883-884, quoting from *Brown v City of New York,*60 NY2d 893, 894) and concluded that no such intervening fact became known in this case. The Court of Appeals reversed for the reasons stated in the dis- senting memorandum *(Callan v State of New York,*73 NY2d 731). Claimant then moved to amend the decision and judg- ment of the Court of Claims insofar as it found that probable cause existed for his arrest, contending that the dissenters’ finding of probable cause at the time of arrest was gratuitous. That contention is without merit. On his cross appeal from the Court of Claims judgment, claimant raised no question concerning the finding of probable cause at the time of arrest, thereby waiving that issue *(see, Velte v Jainew Enters.,*122 AD2d 544). The comment in the dissenting memorandum amounted to no more than a recitation of an unchallenged finding of the trial court. Claimant has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of probable cause and, in moving before the Court of Claims, failed to suggest a sound basis for relitigation of the issue. (Appeal from order of Court of Claims, Corbett, J.&emdash;amend judgment.) Present&emdash;Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ. JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 178 (Friday, September 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21270]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11416 and <greek-i>11417]


North Carolina Disaster <greek-i>NC-00013

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of North Carolina dated 09/04/2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 08/26/2008 through 08/27/2008.
    Effective Date: 09/04/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/03/2008.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/04/2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:
Primary Counties:
    Cabarrus, Mecklenburg.
Contiguous Counties:
    North Carolina: Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Rowan, Stanly, Union.
    South Carolina: Lancaster, York.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere...................      5.750
Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere................      2.875
Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere...................      8.000
Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit        4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit             5.250
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11416 B and
  for economic injury is 114170.

    The States which received an EIDL Declaration <greek-i> are North 
Carolina, South Carolina.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

    Dated: September 4, 2008.
Sandy K. Baruah,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-21270 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

EZEKIYAL WELLS, Case No. 8:23-CV-00226

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

vs. 

 

RALSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS; and 

THOMAS EARHART (an individual being sued 

in his individual capacity), 

 

 Defendants. 

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION 

To: Ralston Public Schools 

845 Park Drive 

Ralston, NE 68127 

 A lawsuit has been filed against you. 

 Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) – or 60 

days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the united States 

described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(2) or (3) – you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached 

complaint or motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be 

served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: 

Oluseyi Olowolafe 

Olowolafe Law Firm, LLC 

1201 Golden Gate Drive 

Papillion, Nebraska 68046 

 If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in 

the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court. 

 CLERK OF COURT 

Date:_______________________ ______________________________ 

 Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
#### Robert Stern, Appellant, v BSL Development Corp. et al., Respondents.

and judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.), entered October 11, 1988 and January 3, 1989, respectively, granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seeks a declaration that he is a shareholder of BSL Development Corporation and a direction that BSL distribute certain funds in accordance with the percentage of stock owned by each shareholder. BSL was incorporated on April 24, 1981 by defendant Labozzetta, an attorney, for the purpose of acquiring and developing real property. Plaintiff does not deny that, on May 29, 1981, he entered Labozzetta’s office without permission, removed the BSL corporate kit and issued to himself two stock certificates purportedly representing 500 shares in BSL. Plaintiff issues the certificates to himself as president and secretary, contrary to the prohibition of Business Corporation Law § 715 (e), and he offers no explanation of the circumstances under which the certificates were supposedly issued. On June 11, 1981, Labozzetta wrote to plaintiff, objecting to the removal of the corporate kit and demanding its return. Plaintiff never replied, but rather brought the underlying action on March 17, 1988, seeking a declaration that he is a shareholder and a distribution of BSL property.

We agree with the Supreme Court that plaintiff’s claim is barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations for "an action for which no limitation is specifically prescribed by law” (CPLR 213 [1]). Plaintiff’s claim is most closely analogous to a contract cause of action which would have expired no later than June 11, 1987 *(Solnick v Whalen,*49 NY2d 224, 230). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
TYRONE D. BLACKSHEAR,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5378

Opinion filed March 4, 2015.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel – Original 

Jurisdiction.

Tyrone D. Blackshear, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Giselle D. Lylen, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is DENIED

on the merits.

CLARK, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
2004 10-K RG&E  Exhibit 10-21



Exhibit 10-19

ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION

SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PROGRAM



Amendment No. 5


          The Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Supplemental Retirement Benefit Program, effective as of July 1, 1999, as subsequently amended by the First, Second, Third and Fourth Amendments thereto (the "Plan"), is hereby further amended as follows:


          1.     Effective as of January 1, 2005, the following is inserted as the second and third sentences of Section 3.1(b)(ii): 

       "Effective January 1, 2005, the benefit amount payable under this Plan shall be the amount of the benefit to which an Employee would otherwise be entitled under the Qualified Retirement Plan formula if the Qualified Retirement Plan (i) did include only the highest 6 payments under the RG&E Executive Incentive Plan (the "EIP") or those payments under the Energy East Corporation Annual Executive Incentive Plan (the "AEIP") made (not accrued) to the Employee within the 120 months preceding termination, with each of the January and March EIP or AEIP payments considered as separate payments for this purpose, and (ii) had a definition of final average compensation based on the 36 months (not necessarily consecutive) within  the 120 months preceding termination which produce the highest average, less (iii) any amounts received by the Employee from the Qualified Retirement Plan (ii) any amounts received by the Employee from the Energy East Corporation ERISA Excess Plan (or any successor to such plan) and (iii) any Social Security benefits which the Key Person is eligible or expected to become eligible to receive as determined by the Committee.  In calculating the benefit amount payable under the preceding sentence, AEIP payments shall be deemed to have been paid in two equal installments in January and March of the Plan Year in which the AEIP was paid for any calculations which include both EIP and AEIP payments"




          2.     Effective as of January 1, 2004, Appendix A attached to the Plan is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

	
"Appendix A

Participating Companies

	
Name of Company
	
Effective Date of Participation

	
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation
	
July 1, 1999

	
RGS Energy Group, Inc.
	
July 1, 1999

	
Energetix, Inc.
	
July 1, 1999

	
Energy East Management Corporation
	
January 1, 2001

	
Utility Shared Services Corporation
	
January 1, 2004".





          3. Except as hereinabove modified and amended, the Plan, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.


          IN WITNESS WHEREOF OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation hereby executes this Amendment No. 5 this 5th day of November, 2004.


	 	
ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC

CORPORATION 




	
___________________________

Witness
	
By: /s/Joseph J. Syta                        

          Joseph J. Syta

          V.P. Controller and Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,171
<ALLOWANCES>                                       427
<INVENTORY>                                      3,378
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,278
<PP&E>                                           1,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                      31
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,036
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,688
<SALES>                                          7,479
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,479
<CGS>                                            3,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  60
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,787
<INCOME-TAX>                                       733
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,847
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,054
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        

</TABLE>
exv10w6



 






Exhibit 10.6




Amendment No. 1 to Corn Products International, Inc.

Deferred Compensation Plan for Outside Directors

(Amended and Restated as of September 19, 2001)




     Amendment No. 1, dated as of December 1, 2004, (this “Amendment”), to the Corn Products
International, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan for Outside Directors (Amended and Restated as of
September 19, 2001) (the “Plan”).



     WHEREAS, the Company established the Plan for the benefit of certain of its directors;



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects; and



     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company is authorized under Section 8 of the Plan to
amend the Plan.



     NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power of amendment contained in Section 8 of the Plan, the
Plan is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2005, as follows:



     The Plan is hereby amended by adding the following as new Section 12:


“12. Suspension of Plan for Future Deferrals. Notwithstanding anything else herein to the contrary,
on and after January 1, 2005, no amounts shall or may be deferred under this Plan, either
mandatorily or voluntarily; provided, however, that any amounts deferred under this Plan prior to
that date shall be maintained as deferrals under this Plan and shall remain subject to all of the
terms and conditions of this Plan.”




     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Corn Products International, Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed
by its duly authorized officer on the day and year first above written.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	CORN PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, Inc.

 	 
	 	By:  	___________________________________
 	 
	 	 	Vice President, Human Resources
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.21    
    


 
 

Summary Description of Commission Compensation
  of Senior Vice President of World-Wide Sales for
  FEI COMPANY    
    


        FEI Company's Vice President World-Wide Sales is also an executive officer of FEI. In addition to base-pay, eligibility for participation
in FEI's management bonus plan and equity-based compensation, the Senior Vice President of World-Wide Sales is eligible for a commission on system bookings. The commission payment for the
Senior Vice President of World-Wide Sales is based on a percentage of total company system bookings for the fiscal year. He is also assigned a quota based on targeted total system
bookings. For any systems bookings above100% of quota, an increased commission percentage is paid. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.21


Summary Description of Commission Compensation of Senior Vice President of World-Wide Sales for FEI COMPANY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SALOME JUAREZ-CASTRO,

Defendant.

8:23MJ313

ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE

DUE PROCESS PROTECTION ACT

This matter came before the Court for Initial Appearance on a Complaint. The government 

was represented by Sean P. Lynch. The defendant was present and represented by Richard H. 

McWilliams. 

IT IS ORDERED:

Pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act, the Court confirms the United States' 

obligation to disclose to the defendant all exculpatory evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland, 

373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and orders the United States to do so. Failure to disclose 

exculpatory evidence in a timely manner may result in consequences, including, but not limited 

to, exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings, 

or sanctions by the Court.

DATED: May 26, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-mj-00313-MDN Doc # 10 Filed: 05/26/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 14
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21583]



[[Page 53420]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-5863-000]


Schwinger, Scott E.; Notice of Filing

September 10, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 4, 2008, Scott E. Schwinger filed an 
application for authorization to hold interlocking positions, pursuant 
to Part 45 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, 18 CFR 48 (2007) 
and section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825(b).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0e6e5f2e3efceccc9cec5f3d5d0d0cfd2d4e0c6c5d2c38ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7f1f2e5f4f8d9dbded9d2e4c2c7c7d8c5c3f7d1d2c5d499d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 25, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21583 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shade Scott, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The prosecutor’s delay in turning over a police report of fingerprint analysis by a prosecution witness did not substantially prejudice the defense and does not warrant reversal *(see, People v Ranghelle,*69 NY2d 56; *People v Jackson,*154 AD2d 930, *lv denied*74 NY2d 949). The court granted a defense request to keep the witness available for recall, but the defense opted to call the witness three trial days later as part of the defense case. Defense counsel had the report in ample time to examine the witness.

The trial court properly denied defense counsel’s request for a statement claimed to be exculpatory in nature *(see, Brady v Maryland,*373 US 83). Upon inquiry by the court, defendant failed to demonstrate " 'some basis’ ” for believing that the material was "potentially exculpatory” *(People v Andre W.,*44 NY2d 179, 184).

The prosecutor’s references, during his opening statement, to the victim’s tortured childhood constituted an improper attempt to arouse the jury’s sympathy, and his reference, during summation, to the characteristics of crack use went beyond the four corners of the evidence. The court, however, gave a strong curative instruction concerning the summation comment, and the prosecutor’s misconduct was not so pervasive or egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial *(see, People v Rosemond,*126 AD2d 962, *lv denied*69 NY2d 886; *People v Roopchand,*107 AD2d 35, *affd*65 NY2d 837).

*856Any error in admitting defendant’s weight bar was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of defendant’s guilt *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 242). Defendant’s claim of evidentiary insufficiency is devoid of merit. The remaining issues raised on appeal were not preserved for our review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our discretionary power of review. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—murder, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.