alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Terrick Terrell, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 286]

— Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mondo, J), both imposed February 22, 2012, upon his pleas of guilty, on the ground that the sentences were excessive.

Ordered that the sentences are affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waivers of his right to appeal were invalid *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248 [2006]; *People v Collins,*104 AD3d 785, 785 [2013]; *People v Norfort,*101 AD3d 756 [2012]) and, thus, do not preclude review of his excessive sentence claims. However, the sentences imposed were not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, EJ., Skelos, Roman, Cohen and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
| 1. | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of and for the period covered by theReport. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date:  March      30, 2009 |   |   | /s/      DOUGLAS J. ANDREA                                                                                        |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |   |   | Douglas      J. AndreaChairman      of the Board, President, Chief      Executive Officer and Corporate Secretary |
|   |                                 |   |   |                                                                                                              |
|   |                                 |   |   | /s/ CORISA L. GUIFFRE                                                                                             |
|   |                                 |   |   | Corisa      L. GuiffreVice      President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant      Corporate Secretary         |
#### Beit Shalom, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Verizon New York, Inc., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[976 NYS2d 914]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County (Bernadette T. Clark, J.), entered February 6, 2013. The order granted the motion of plaintiffs for leave to reargue their opposition to that part of the cross motion of defendants Verizon New York, Inc., New York Telephone Co., Inc. and Verizon Communication, Inc. to dismiss the first cause of action and, upon reargument, denied the cross motion with respect to that cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Garni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
Edmondson, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting

in part:

I concur in the result and in the opinion of the Court,

except I dissent from the Court’s conclusion on sentencing

discussed at III.A. of the Court’s opinion: Given the nature of

the evidence before the district court at sentencing, I cannot

say that the district court committed clear error. I would affirm

the convictions and sentences.
# Drill #4

&"Times New Roman,Bold"Mobile Attack		&"Times New Roman,Bold"Drill #4

&P	

&P	

# Code Page

# image1.png
#### GUNDERSON v. MORAN TRANSP. CORP.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Dec. 14, 1953.

*112Arthur Bardack, New York City, William L. Standard, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Alexander & Ash, New York City, for defendant. :

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff moves for a discovery and inspéction of certain enumerated items presumably under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 34, 28.U.S.C.A., in an action arising out of his employment as a scowman on the Scow Moran.No. 109 in September, 1952.

Defendant opposes granting of the motion on-the sole ground that a showing of “good cause” required by the rule has not been made.

The parties admitted upon argument that cross-notices to take each other’s deposition had been served but adjourned *sine -die.*

The affidavit, upon which the motion is- made, is that of an attorney, who characterizes himself as being a member of the law firm which is “of counsel” to the plaintiff’s attorney of record.

The sole good cause therein relied upon is stated to be that “[T]he plaintiff is about 65 years of age, and the *forwarding attorney advises us*that he does not make himself clearly and easily understood with reference to his employment conditions”. (Emphasis supplied.)

Except for permission to take photographs and measurements of the scow, to which defendant consents, the items sought could more readily be obtained by deposition or interrogatory. This, however, is no reason to deny the relief sought if good cause is shown.

Form 24 appended to the Rules sets forth the suggested form of affidavit to be employed on a motion for production of documents. Subdivision (2) thereof indicates what must be shown to establish good cause.

The instant affidavit falls short of compliance therewith.

Accordingly, except for permission to take photographs and measurements of the scow upon the conditions incorporated in defendant’s consent thereto, the motion is denied without prejudice to a renewal thereof upon the following terms: 1. That in his notice of motion, plaintiff cite the rule under which he is proceeding (see Headnote, Motion Calendar, New York Law Journal); 2. That plaintiff seek only those documents established on defendant’s deposition or answers to interrogatories to exist; and 3. That plaintiff establish good cause ■by proper affidavit setting forth facts and not vague hearsay or conclusions. ■

Settle' order.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of CHS
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A-2 for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John Schmitz, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial 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.



| |                                                         
| | --------------------------------------------------------
| | /s/ JOHN SCHMITZ                                        
| |                                                         
| | John Schmitz                                            
| | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
    Officer

March 2, 2004
United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

1849 C Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20240 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

Y14(9560) *** ELECTRONIC COPY ONLY – NO HARD COPY TO FOLLOW *** 

August 28, 2008 

Memorandum 

To: Regional Directors 

Attention: Superintendents 

From: for Associate Director, Visitor and Resource Protection /s/ Cameron Sholly 

Subject: Implementation Extension and Modifications of the Interagency Fire Program 

Management Qualifications Standards and Guide (IFPM Standard) 

A DOI memorandum dated June 18, 2004, established a five-year implementation period, ending on 

October 1, 2009, for the IFPM Standard. A subsequent memorandum issued on February 29, 2008, 

reaffirmed this deadline, as well as the roles and responsibilities of employees and supervisors in meeting 

the minimum qualifications of the IFPM Standard. 

In the past 4 years, National Park Service employees, with support from their supervisors and Human 

Resources, have made significant progress in meeting the requirements of the IFPM Standard. However, 

Departmental leadership has agreed to extend the implementation deadline to October 1, 2010. A 

memorandum signed by Associate Deputy Secretary Cason is attached. 

This extension applies to the minimum qualifications which include the National Wildfire Coordinating 

Group (NWCG) incident management qualifications, additional required training, and the GS-0401 

positive education requirements for those positions targeted to transition from technical to professional. 

This also extends the June 4, 2009, deadline (NPS Human Resources Bulletin 08-01, attached) to October 

1, 2010, for employees who entered GS-0401 Fire Management Specialist Positions on or after February 

15, 2005, but did not meet the positive education requirements. 

It is imperative that employees who are in GS-0401 positions that do not fully meet current education 

requirements and employees who are in positions slated to transition to GS-0401 positions have an 

Individual Development Plans (IDP) that identifies how they plan to meet the positive education 

requirements by October 1, 2010. 

The attached memorandum also mentions programmatic changes to the IFPM Standard, including the 

removal of the Prevention and Mitigation Specialist positions from the IFPM Standard. The IFPM 

Standard Implementation Plan and the IFPM Standard are being revised to reflect these and other changes 

and should be available in early November. 

If you have questions related to the implementation of the IFPM Standard, please contact Mark Koontz, 

Wildland Fire Training Program Manager, at (208) 387-5090 (Mark_Koontz@nps.gov) or Melissa 

Anglin, Human Resources Specialist, at (252) 473-3468 (Melissa_Anglin@nps.gov ). 

Attachments
Document

Exhibit 10.1



Summary of Outside Director Compensation of OUTFRONT Media Inc.


Cash Compensation 


Non-employee directors (the “Outside Directors”) on the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of OUTFRONT Media Inc. (the “Company”) shall receive the following cash compensation, to be effective as of July 1, 2022:


•An $82,500 annual Board retainer, payable in equal installments quarterly in advance;


•A $10,000 annual committee member retainer for each member of the Compensation Committee of the Board (the “Compensation Committee”) and the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board (the “Nominating and Governance Committee”), payable in equal installments quarterly in advance;


•A $15,000 annual committee member retainer for each member of the Audit Committee of the Board (the “Audit Committee”), payable in equal installments quarterly in advance; 


•A $20,000 annual committee chair retainer for the chair of the Compensation Committee and the chair of the Nominating and Governance Committee, payable in equal installments quarterly in advance; 


•A $25,000 annual retainer for the Company’s lead independent director, payable in equal installments quarterly in advance; and


•A $30,000 annual committee chair retainer for the chair of the Audit Committee, payable in equal installments quarterly in advance.


Equity Compensation


Effective as of the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders on June 7, 2022, each Outside Director shall be entitled to receive the following awards under the Company’s Amended and Restated Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan:


•An annual grant on the date of the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders of restricted share units (“RSUs”) with a value of $145,000 based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the New York Stock Exchange on the date of grant, which RSUs will (i) vest one year from the date of grant and (ii) be entitled to dividend equivalents accruing on such RSUs in amounts equal to the regular cash dividends paid on the Company’s common stock, with such accrued dividend equivalents to be settled in shares of the Company’s common stock on the date of vesting; and


•A prorated RSU grant if an Outside Director joins the Board following the date of the annual RSU grant, but during the calendar year of the grant. 










Expenses


Outside Directors will be reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending Board, committee, and stockholder meetings (including travel and lodging).
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT


I, Virgil Baker, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of eTotalSource, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain 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 this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

<PAGE>

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  November 13, 2003


/s/ Virgil Baker
-----------------------
Virgil Baker,
Secretary/Treasurer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

D IANA RUIZ ESPARZA

,

Appellant,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00 259

- C V

Appeal from the

210 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2012

- DCV

- 02870 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appell ant’s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until March 1 2 , 2014

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE APPELL ANT ’S BR IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Enrique Lopez , the Appell ant ’s attorney, prepare

the Appell ant ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before March 1 2 , 2014.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12 th day of February , 20 1 4

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez , JJ.
No. 924.

#### Arsenal Building Corp. et al. *v.*Fleming, Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Department of Labor.

March 2, 1942.

Petition for writ *793of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted.

*Messrs. Walter Gordon Merritt*and *Kenneth C. Newman*for petitioners. *Solicitor General Fahy*and *Mr. Warner W. Gardner*for respondent.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                        REDHOOK ALE BREWERY, INCORPORATED
                 FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I am the President and Chief Financial Officer of Redhook Ale Brewery,
Incorporated, a Washington corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this
certificate in connection with the Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
December 31, 2005 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form
10-K").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 31, 2006

                                      BY: /s/  David J. Mickelson
                                          -----------------------------------
                                               David J. Mickelson
                                               President and Chief Financial
                                               Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROY STEVE DAVIS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-89-407-A, CA-97-448-AM)

Submitted: July 30, 1998 Decided: August 14, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Steve Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher Louis Cardani,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Appellant’s “Motion for

Consideration” of his informal brief, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Davis, Nos. CR-89-407-A; CA-97-448-AM (E.D.

Va. Apr. 9 and Sept. 17, 1997). Because the claims were not

presented in the district court, we deny Appellant’s motion to

supplement the record. We deny Appellant’s motions for appointment

of counsel and for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3032 

To prohibit the enforcement of a climate change interpretive guidance issued 

by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2010 

Mr. BARRASSO introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the enforcement of a climate change interpretive 

guidance issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Maintaining Agency 

5 Direction on Financial Fraud Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INTERPRETIVE GUIDANCE NULL AND VOID. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no inter8 pretive guidance issued by the Securities and Exchange 

9 Commission on or after the effective date of this Act relat10 ing to ‘‘Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure ReVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:50 Feb 25, 2010 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3032.IS S3032

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3032 IS

1 lated to Climate Change’’, affecting Parts 211, 231, and 

2 249 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, (as described 

3 in Commission Release Nos. 33–9106; 34–61469; FR– 

4 82), or any successor thereto, may take effect, and such 

5 guidance shall have no force or effect with respect to any 

6 person on or after February 2, 2010. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS