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

EXIT

Cafeteria

Courtyard

M W

Employee 

lounge

VC

You are here ph
VCAT Agenda Review 

June 9-10, 2009

Theme: NIST’s Laboratory Programs and Their Importan

Standards Development and Implementa

Day 1

3⁄4 NIST Deputy Director’s Update3⁄4 Session I: Promoting U.S. Innovation and Compe

Documentary Standards - NIST’s Role in Docume

3⁄4 Session II: Case Study in Smart Grid

• Overview of NIST Role in Smart Grid• External Perspective on Vision, Status, and Ch

with Smart Grid

• Importance of NIST Laboratory Research Prog

Grid Standards

• Laboratory Tour – Phasor Measurement Units

3⁄4 Session III: Case Study in Health Care IT

• Overview of NIST Role in Health Care IT• Industry Perspective on Issues and Challenge

Health Care IT

• Importance of NIST Laboratory Research Prog

Care IT Standards

• Demo – Enabling Clinical Information Sharing
VCAT Agenda Review (contin

June 9-10, 2009

Day 2

3⁄4 Session IV: Wrap-Up

• Roundtable Discussion on Key Questions for 

3⁄4 What aspects of NIST’s federal coordination 

the technical capabilities of the NIST laborat

3⁄4 How could NIST enhance its support of othe

in meeting U.S. Government needs for volunstandards?

3⁄4 What would be the potential impacts on the 

programs of NIST elevating the priority of its coordination role?

• VCAT Feedback Session • Plans for October 2009 Meeting
Dr. Alton (Al) D. RomExecutive Vice PresidenDeputy Laboratories DireChief Operating OfficerSandia National Laborat

New VCAT Member

• Joined Sandia in 1979. • Member of the National Academy of Engineering .• Active on several NAE/National Research Council Committees 

• Fellow and former President of ASM. • Fellow of AAAS and TMS, and Senior Member of IEEE.• Other memberships include the Council on Foreign Relations a

the Intelligence Science Board. 

• Recipient of numerous professional awards, including the 2005 

Advancement Award from the Federal of Materials Societies.
<PAGE>   1


Exhibit 11 - Earnings per share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                           1998           1997
<S>                                                    <C>              <C>      
Income (loss) from continuing operations               (1,503,234)      (223,665)
Less dividends on preferred stock                         (11,671)       (12,212)
Income (loss) from continuing operations applicable
     to common shareholders                            (1,514,905)      (235,877)
Less discontinued operations                                    0        (25,992)
Net (loss) applicable to common shareholders           (1,514,905)      (261,869)

Weighted average common shares outstanding              2,705,699      1,737,588
Weighted average options vested                            87,343        155,437

Net income (loss) per common share
     Basic                                             $    (0.56)    $    (0.15)
     Diluted                                           $    (0.56)    $    (0.15)
</TABLE>
10834.

#### Dyer *v.*Black.

Decided December 12, 1919.

Lien foreclosure; from Carroll superior court—Judge Terrell. July 9,1919.

*Boykin & Boykin,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. G. Strickland,*contra.

Luke, J.

This case is here upon the sole assignment of error that the verdict is without evidence to support it. The evidence, though conflicting, supports the verdict; and, the judge who tried the case having approved the verdict, this court cannot reverse the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-86252, 333-10630 and 333-6366) and the
Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-82728) of Moore Corporation Limited
of our reports dated February 22, 2001, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Toronto, Canada
February 12, 2003



                                                                              73
10866.

#### MOULTRIE GROCERY CO. *v.*CHARLESTON MILLING CO.

No contract of sale was completed by the telegrams which are the basis of this suit.

Decided December 16, 1919.

Rehearing denied February 7, 1920.

Action on contract; from Colquitt superior court—-Judge Thomas. July 25, 1919.

*W. F. Way,*for plaintiff.

*James Humphreys, Dowling & Askew,*for defendant.

Smith, J.

1. A broker at Albany, Georgia, made an offer by telegram on July 18, 1916, to the Charleston Milling Company, a corporation situated at Charleston, Missouri, to sell to the Moultrie Grocery Company “2000 barrels of flour, basis Eclipse Brand, plain, sacked, delivered Moultrie,” at $5.85 per barrel, and in reply to his offer received the following telegram from the Charleston Milling Company: “Decline Moultrie. Will book School Days $6.40; Eclipse, plain, $6.10; self-rising $6.30; Queen South, self-rising, $5.20; put your force behind Eclipse. Have understand*624ing all contracts prorated monthly and give specifications first car immediately; needing prompt shipping order; market still advancing.” -In response to this telegram the broker on July 19, 1916, wired: “Book Moultrie per your message Eclipse $6.10; Daisy self-rising $6.10; Queen of South $5.20.” On July 22. 1916, the milling company wired to the broker: “Moultrie booking declined account price Daisy self-rising; quotations all made subject to confirmation as advised, especially on such a radically advancing market. Don’t work Jacksonville, Snyder Bros, our representatives.” It appears from this correspondence, as well as from the undisputed evidence adduced on the trial, that not only was there a substitution by the broker in his telegram of acceptance of “Daisy self-rising $6.10” for “School Days $6.40,” as contained in the telegram making the offer, but that the latter brand of flour was not a self-rising flour, whereas the one substituted in lieu thereof was a self-rising flour.

While a contract may be made by telegrams, the telegrams which were the basis of this suit did not constitute a complete contract between the Moultrie Grocery Company and the Charleston Milling Company, since the broker’s offer was not accepted by the seller unequivocally, unconditionally, and without variance. There was no mutual assent of the parties to the same thing in the same sense. *Robinson*v. *Weller,*81 *Ga.*704 (8 S. E. 447); *Stix*v. *Roulston,*88 *Ga.*748 (15 S. E. 826); *Harris*v. *Lumber Co.,*97 *Ga.*465 (25 S. E. 519); *Larned*v. *Wentworth,*114 *Ga.*209 (39 S. E. 855); *Harper*v. *Ginners Mutual Insurance Co., 6 Ga. App.*139, 142 (64 S. E. 567); *Phinizy*v. *Bush,*129 *Ga.*479; *Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co.*v. *Sorrells,*23 *Ga. App.*398 (98 S. E. 358). The trial judge therefore did not err in granting a nonsuit.

2. Under the above ruling it is unnecessary to pass upon the 5th ground of error set out in the bill of exceptions, in which it is alleged that the defendant in the court below waited an unreasonable length of time to repudiate or refuse to accept the order made by the plaintiff in the court below for the sale and purchase of the flour.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the 1999 Amended Annual Report of Mid-State Raceway, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10 K-A for the period ending December 31, 1999 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Hoolae Paoa, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.

---------------------------
Hoolae Paoa
Chief Executive Officer
January 20, 2004

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the 1999 Amended Annual Report of Mid-State Raceway, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10 K-A for the period ending December 31, 1999 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Rose Frawert, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

      2.    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.

---------------------------
Rose Frawert
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
January 20, 2004

This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
Exhibit (10.1)  



ALLIANT ENERGY
CORPORATION                                                        
INTERSTATE POWER AND
LIGHT COMPANY                                                        
WISCONSIN POWER AND
LIGHT COMPANY 



Summary of Compensation
and Benefits for
Non-Employee Directors  
Effective January 1, 2006  



                Effective
January 1, 2006, the compensation for non-employee members of the Board of Directors (the
“Board”) of Alliant Energy Corporation, Interstate Power and Light Company and
Wisconsin Power and Light Company will be as follows: 



                Non-employee
members of the Board will be entitled to receive the following annual retainers, as
applicable: 



	 	      • 	$100,000
for each non-employee director;





	 	      • 	$20,000
for the Lead Independent Director of the Board;





	 	      • 	$10,000
for the Chairperson of the Audit Committee of the Board;





	 	      • 	$3,500
for each member of the Audit Committee of the Board other than the Chairperson; and





	 	      • 	$5,000
for the  Chairperson of each of the  Compensation  and Personnel  Committee,  the
Nominating and             Governance Committee, and the Nuclear, Health and Safety
Committee of the Board.






Payments of all retainers shall be in
cash and shall be pro-rated for retiring directors and for those directors whose terms
shall expire at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, with the balance of any annual
retainer amounts being paid following such director’s re-election at the Annual
Meeting of Shareholders. 



                Each
director may, and is encouraged to, voluntarily elect an amount of any of the cash
compensation retainers to purchase common stock of Alliant Energy Corporation under the
Shareowner Direct Plan or to have an amount be deferred in the Director’s Deferred
Compensation Plan Stock Account. 



                Alliant
Energy Corporation maintains a Director’s Charitable Award Program for directors who
were elected or appointed to the Board on or prior to January 1, 2005. Under the Program,
when a director dies, Alliant Energy Corporation will donate a total of $500,000 to one
qualified charitable organization or divide that amount among a maximum of five qualified
charitable organizations selected by the individual director. All deductions for
charitable contributions are taken by Alliant Energy Corporation, and the donations are
funded by Alliant Energy Corporation through life insurance policies on the directors.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4471 Referral Instructions Senate (RIS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 4471

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 22, 2004

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 
with instructions that when the Committee reports, the bill be referred 
  pursuant to the order of May 27, 1988, to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs for a period not to exceed 60 days

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To clarify the loan guarantee authority under title VI of the Native 
    American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996.

    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 ``Homeownership Opportunities for 
Native Americans Act of 2004''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL GUARANTEES FOR FINANCING FOR TRIBAL HOUSING ACTIVITIES.

    Section 601 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4191) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Limitation on Percentage.--A guarantee made under this title 
shall guarantee repayment of 95 percent of the unpaid principal and 
interest due on the notes or other obligations guaranteed.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 21, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 06-2326 SPGGC, LLC; METABANK; U.S. BANK N.A., Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v . KELLY A. AYOTTE, New Hampshire Attorney General, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on May 30, 2007, is amended as follows:

The citation on page 1 8, lines 21-22 should read: "supra note 4."
<PAGE>   1


                                                                 EXHIBIT 5.1












   
                                                  October 8, 1998
    



OpTel, Inc.
1111 W. Mockingbird Lane
Dallas, Texas 75247

Ladies and Gentlemen:

                  We have acted as counsel to OpTel, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), in connection with its Registration Statement on
Form S-4 and all amendments thereto (the "Registration Statement"), filed
pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
relating to the Company's proposed offer to exchange (the "Exchange Offer") 11
1/2% Senior Notes due 2008, Series B, of the Company (the "New Notes") for any
and all outstanding 11 1/2% Senior Notes due 2008 (the "Old Notes"). The Old
Notes were issued and sold on July 7, 1998 pursuant to an indenture (the
"Indenture") between the Company and U.S. Trust Company of Texas, N.A., as
trustee, in a transaction exempt from registration under the Securities Act in
reliance upon Rule 144A and Regulation S of the Securities Act. The New Notes
will also be issued pursuant to the Indenture.

                  In that connection, we have reviewed the Indenture, the
Registration Statement and such other documents and instruments as we have
deemed appropriate. In such review, we have assumed the genuineness of all
signatures, the authenticity of all documents submitted as originals and the
conformity to the original documents of all documents submitted to us as copies.

   
                  On the basis of such review, and having regard to such legal
consideration as we have deemed relevant, it is our opinion that the New Notes
have been duly and validly authorized for issuance by the Company and, when
issued in accordance with the terms of the Exchange Offer and the Indenture,
will be the legal, valid and binding obligations of the Company, enforceable
against the Company in accordance with their terms and entitled to the benefits
of the Indenture, except that we express no opinion as to the validity or
enforceability of rights of indemnity or contribution, or both, and except as
such enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy, insolvency, fraudulent
conveyance, reorganization or similar laws affecting the rights of creditors
generally and subject to general principles of equity.
    


<PAGE>   2


   
October 8, 1998
Page 2
    




   
    

                  We are members of the Bar of the State of New York and do not
purport to be experts or give any opinion except as to matters involving the
laws of such state, the general corporation laws of the State of Delaware and
the federal laws of the United States.

                  We hereby consent to the use of our name under the caption
"Legal Matters" in the prospectus included in the Registration Statement and to
the use of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration Statement.

                                        Very truly yours,
                                            



                                        /s/ Kronish Lieb Weiner & Hellman, LLP
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL LEWIS BENNETT, :

Petitioner, : CA 09-0827-CG-C

vs. : CR 07-0237-CG

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

Respondent. 

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this case be DISMISSED

and that a certificate of appealability be accordingly DENIED. 

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2010.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cr-00237-CG-C Document 47 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6912** 

DEVINCHE ALBRITTON , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections; JOHN DOE, Virginia Department of Corrections Health Services Director; DAVID B. EVERETT, Warden of Sussex II State Prison; MS. WANDA ROLLINS, Sussex II State Prison Operations Officer and Law Library Supervisor; OFFICER CRIS, former Sergeant Cris, now Officer Cris; MS. MASSENBURG, Grievance Coordinator; JAN E DOE, The Office Service Specialist , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Jerome B. Friedman , District Judge. ( 2:07

- cv - 00356

- JBF

- FBS )

Submitted : November 18, 2 010 Decided: December 1, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. DeVinche Albritton, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virgi nia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: DeVinche Albritton appeals the district court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion for relief from judgment . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Albritton v. Johnson , No. 2:07

- cv - 00356

- JBF

- FBS (E.D. Va. filed June 16, 2010; entered June 17, 2010)
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts an d legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1232 CA 11-02555**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

ALESSANDRO SACCHETTI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MICHAEL L. GIORDANO, DPM, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

DAMON MOREY LLP, BUFFALO (AMY ARCHER FLAHERTY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

PAMELA R. HALPIN, EAST ROCHESTER, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (William P. Polito, J.), entered April 7, 2011. The judgment awarded plaintiff money damages upon a jury verdict.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained as a result of defendant’s alleged podiatric malpractice. Following a trial, the jury found defendant liable for plaintiff’s injuries and awarded damages to plaintiff. Defendant made a posttrial motion to set aside the jury’s verdict on the ground that it is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and to direct a verdict in his favor. In the alternative, defendant requested that a new trial be granted because, inter alia, the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s posttrial motion.

Contrary to defendant’s contention, plaintiff established a prima facie case of podiatric malpractice. Indeed, “there is a valid line of reasoning supporting the jury’s verdict that defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care . . . and that such deviation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries” ( Winiarski v Harris [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1556, 1557; cf

. James v Wormuth [appeal No. 2], 93 AD3d 1290, 1291). We reject defendant’s alternative contention in support of his posttrial motion that the verdict on liability is against the weight of the evidence. We conclude that the verdict “is one that reasonable persons could have rendered after receiving conflicting evidence[ and thus we] should not substitute [our] judgment for that of the jury” ( Herbst v Marshall , 89 AD3d 1403, 1403).

Finally, contrary to defendant’s contention, the jury awards for past and future lost wages are supported by legally sufficient evidence**-2- 1232 CA 11-02555** 
and are not against the weight of the evidence. While plaintiff did not become a union electrician until after he was treated by defendant, “ ‘[r]ecovery for lost earning capacity is not limited to a plaintiff’s actual earnings before the [injury], . . . and the assessment of damages may instead be based upon future probabilities’ ” ( Huff v Rodriguez , 45 AD3d 1430, 1433; see Kirschhoffer v Van Dyke , 173 AD2d 7, 10).

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
**Exhibit      10(l)(3)**

| 1.   | Effective                January 1, 1996, Section 2.01(f) of the Plan is amended to provide                as                follows: |
|----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | Effective                January 1, 1996, Section 4.02-A of the Plan is amended to provide                as                follows: |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**Section      4.02-A. Allocation of Employer Matching Contributions. **

| 3.   | Effective                January 1, 1996, Section 4.02-B of the Plan is amended to provide                as                follows: |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

**Section      4.02-B. Allocation of Employer Qualified Nonelective      Contribution.**