alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jose Kruk et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 233]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J), entered July 6, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff Jose Kruk was injured while using a power saw. While Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.12 (c) (1) is applicable because plaintiff was using a “power-driven saw” at the time of his accident, defendant *519established that the saw was equipped with the necessary protective guards in compliance with the provision by submitting, among other things, the deposition testimony of Jose and his coworker and the affidavit of its expert.

Plaintiffs’ opposition failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Plaintiffs submitted the transcript of the injured plaintiff’s General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony in which he testified that the subject saw had a bottom guard which covered the saw blade when it was “closed.” He further stated that the plywood he was cutting broke, pushing his left hand into the saw’s blade. Such evidence is insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the saw had a defective or inadequate “movable self-adjusting guard below the base plate,” which failed to “completely cover the saw blade to the depth of the teeth when such saw blade [was] removed from the cut” (12 NYCRR 23-1.12 [c] [1]; *cf. Keneally v 400 Fifth Realty LLC, 110*AD3d 624 [1st Dept 2013]).

Plaintiffs’ theory that the accident was caused by defendant’s failure to provide the injured plaintiff with a saw table does not support his claim under Labor Law § 241 (6) because 12 NYCRR 23-1.12 (c) (1) does not require that a saw table be provided to workers using a “power-driven saw.” Plaintiffs’ challenge to the probative value of defendant’s expert’s affidavit is improperly raised for the first time on appeal *(see e.g. Gramercy Co. v Benenson,*223 AD2d 497, 498 [1st Dept 1996]). In any event, the challenge is without support, as there is no evidence suggesting that the subject saw was altered or modified during the 16 months between plaintiffs accident and the time of the examination of the saw by the expert. Moreover, the expert’s opinion was based, in part, on his review of certain photographs taken of the saw, which plaintiff testified were accurate depictions of the saw’s condition at the time of the accident.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P, Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
3

GGR Growth by Region 

Total GGR

($000’s)

FY15 vs FY14 FY16 vs FY15 FY17 vs FY16
NIGC.GOV

FY 2002-2022

GGR TRENDING

GGR FY 2022

Fiscal Year 2020 was a major exception to the trend, where the GGR decreased due to 

the closure of gaming operations for different lengths of time as a result of the

COVID-19 pandemic.

Fiscal Year 2022’s GGR of $40.9 billion marks the 

highest ever GGR for the Indian gaming industry.

As the chart illustrates, the Indian gaming industry 

has been showing steady year-over-year increases 

for the past 20 years.
Exhibit 23(b)

  

Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Post-Effective Amendments No. 3 and 5A on Form S-8 to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 33-54298) and the related prospectuses of Entergy Corporation, Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-02503 and 333-22007) of Entergy Corporation, and Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-98179, 333-90914, 333-75097, 333-55692, and 333-68950) of Entergy Corporation of our report dated March 1, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Entergy-Koch, LP as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for the three year period ended December 31, 2004 included in Exhibit 99(b) of this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Entergy Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2005.

                                                                                                                          	/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Houston, Texas
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Josue Deliser, Appellant.

Submitted July 9, 2012;

decided August 28, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn W.L. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.30

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$2,000,000                                                 Palo Alto, California
Due February 25, 2002                                          February 22, 1999

FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Young Sohn ("Borrower") promises to pay to Oak 
Technology, a Delaware corporation or order (the "Company"), at Sunnyvale, 
California or at such place or places as the holder of this promissory note 
(the "Note") may from time to time designate in writing, the principal sum of 
Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) (the "Principal"). The unpaid balance of 
Principal shall bear interest from the date hereof at a rate of Four and 
Sixty-Two One Hundredths Percent (4.62%) per annum, compounded annually.

This Note shall be payable in equal annual installments of Six Hundred 
Sixty-Six Thousand Six Hundred Sixty-Six Dollars and Sixty-Six Cents 
($666,666.66) of the Principal balance, plus any accrued but unpaid interest 
commencing on February 25, 2000. Each payment shall be credited first to 
interest then accrued and the remainder to principal. Notwithstanding the 
foregoing, the outstanding Principal balance and any accrued but unpaid 
interest shall be due and payable upon the earlier of (i) February 25, 2002, 
or (ii) the termination for any reason of Borrower's employment the with 
Company.

Borrower waives demand, presentment, notice of protest, notice of demand and 
dishonor in collection. Borrower hereby waives to the full extent permitted 
by law all rights to plead any statute of limitations as a defense to any 
action hereunder. The failure of the Company to exercise any of the rights 
created hereby, or to promptly enforce any of the provisions of this Note, 
shall not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise such rights or to 
enforce any such provisions.

If any amount due under the terms of this Note is not paid in full, Borrower 
agrees to pay all reasonable costs and expenses of collection, including 
attorneys' fees. Borrower also waives presentment, demand, protest, notice of 
protest, notice of dishonor, notice of nonpayment, any and all other notices 
and demands in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default 
or enforcement of this Note.

As used herein, "Borrower" includes the heirs, executors, successors, assigns 
and distributees of Borrower and the "Company" includes the successors, 
assigns and distributees of the Company, as well as a holder in due course of 
this Note.

This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of 
the State of California.



                                        ---------------------------
                                        Young Sohn
Document

Exhibit 10.iii.a
THE MOSAIC COMPANY
SUMMARY OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Non-Employee Directors
Effective May 19, 2022, the director compensation policy adopted by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of The Mosaic Company (“Mosaic”) provides for cash compensation to non-employee directors as follows:
•an annual cash retainer of $180,000 to our Chairman of the Board and $105,000 to each other director;
•an annual cash retainer of $24,000 to the Chair of our Audit Committee;
•an annual cash retainer of $20,000 to the Chair of our Compensation Committee; and
•an annual cash retainer of $15,000 to each director who serves as Chair of our Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee or Environmental, Health, Safety and Sustainable Development Committee.
In addition, policy adopted by the Board provides for an annual grant of restricted stock units to be settled in Mosaic common stock, valued at $262,500 for the Chairman of the Board and $157,500 for each other non-employee director.  Mosaic reimburses directors for travel and business expenses incurred in connection with meeting attendance.  Mosaic does not pay meeting fees or provide any perquisites to our non-employee directors except for reimbursement of travel expenses when spouses attend Board functions.
Employee Directors
Directors who are employees receive no director fees or other separate compensation for service on the Board or any committee of the Board for the period during which they are employees.
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.
 Federal Maritime Commission
 Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary license has been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. Chapter 409) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR Part 515. License No.
Name/address
Date reissued019278N
Nelcon Cargo Corp., 7270 NW 35th Terrace, #102, Miami, FL 33122
March 29, 2009.
 Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing.


[FR Doc. E9-14158 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Document

EXHIBIT 10.1




CERTAIN IDENTIFIED INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE EXHIBIT BECAUSE IT IS BOTH NOT MATERIAL AND IS THE TYPE THAT THE REGISTRANT TREATS AS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL. SUCH EXCLUDED INFORMATION HAS BEEN MARKED WITH “[***].”




AMENDMENT NO.  1
TO
DATA SERVICES AND LICENSE AGREEMENT


    Reference is made to the Data Services and License Agreement (the “Agreement”), effective as of January 26, 2022, by and between Life360, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Life360”), and Placer Labs Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Placer”).  Unless otherwise defined, capitalized terms herein have the same meaning as in the Agreement.  


    This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DATA SERVICES AND LICENSE AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into by and between the parties as of June 8, 2022.  


    WHEREAS:  The parties have been operating under the Agreement, and now desire to amend and modify certain provisions therein.


    NOW, THEREFORE:  Notwithstanding any other provisions in the Agreement, the parties agree, and the Agreement is accordingly amended and modified, as follows:


    1.      Section 2(f) of Attachment A of the Agreement is amended to add the following sub-sections (ii) and (iii): 


[***]


[***]


    2.    In the event of any conflict between the Agreement and this Amendment, the provisions in this Amendment shall control.  In all other respects, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


    3.    This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California, without reference to conflicts of laws principles that would require the application of the laws of a different jurisdiction.


    4.    This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be considered an original and all of which together will constitute the same instrument, and may be executed by facsimile or electronic signature.




															
	"Placer"			"Life360"	
	Placer Labs, Inc.		Life360, Inc.
					
	By:	/s/ Naom Ben-Zvi		By:	/s/ Itamar Novick
					
	Name:	Naom Ben-Zvi		Name:	Itamar Novick
	Title:	CEO		Title:	Chief Business Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000824416
<NAME>                        Quest Products Corporation
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                         643
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  55,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    124,184
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               181,166
<PP&E>                                         48,415
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (21,371)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 249,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,237,007
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,677
<OTHER-SE>                                     (991,995)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   249,689
<SALES>                                        454,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               454,278
<CGS>                                          88,998
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               678,771
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,486
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (325,955)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandon David SATTLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-11511.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 20, 2006.

Charles William Brown, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Bruce Edward Anton, Sorrels *&*Udashen, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Brandon David Sattler appeals his sentence following his guilty plea conviction for bank fraud and aiding and abetting. Sattler argues that: (1) the district court violated the Ex Post Facto Clause because it sentenced him using the 2001 United States Sentencing Guidelines; (2) his sentence was improper under *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); and (3) the district court erred in making his sentence consecutive to his sentence in an unrelated state case. However, Sattler knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, the Government moves to dismiss the appeal on the basis of the waiver, and the plain language of the waiver bars this appeal. *See United States v. Story,*439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir.2006); *United States v. Bond,*414 F.3d 542, 546 (5th Cir.2005); *United States v. McKinney,*406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir.2005).

Sattler’s argument that the waiver does not bind him because it was perfected prior to the release of *Booker*is unavailing. *See United States v. Burns,*433 F.3d 442, 450-51 (5th Cir.2005). Sattler’s argument that the waiver does not bar his appeal because his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum sentence is foreclosed by *United States v. Cortez,*413 F.3d 502, 503 (5th *450Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 502, 163 L.Ed.2d 365 (2005). Sattler has not shown that the district court made any arithmetic errors in the process of applying the Guidelines. Sattler’s argument that he did not waive the right to appointed counsel on direct appeal does not alter the validity or enforceability of the waiver.

MOTION DENIED; AEFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### RUCIENSKI v. VANADIUM CORPORATION OF AMERICA.

Civil Action No. 801.

District Court, W. D. New York.

Dec. 24, 1943.

Ivan V. Sturge, of Rochester, N. Y. (William L. Clay, of Rochester, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiff.

Franchot, Runals, Cohen, Taylor & Rick-ert, of Niagara Falls, N. Y. (Thomas G. Rickert, of Niagara Falls, N. Y., of counsel), for defendant.

BURKE, District Judge.

The complaint alleges a claim for damages based upon a breach of statutory duty. The complaint and bill of particulars set forth a single cause of action for damages for disease ascribed to inhalation of harmful impurities in the air and the allegations are explicit that all injurious exposure terminated not later than August 31, 1935. The defendant answered setting up the defense of the statute of limitations. The defendant then moved for summary judgment on all the papers. The motion was argued before Judge Knight, who took the motion under advisement and ordered that it be “held generally” subject to being brought on for further consideration at any time by either party upon notice. Neither party has moved in regard thereto. The plaintiff now moves for leave to serve an amended complaint to plead two causes of action. The first would be solely for tuberculosis attributed exclusively to gases and fumes and based on a continuing tort to the end of plaintiff’s employment about October 15, 1939. The second would be for dust diseases alleged to have been due solely to dust inhalation ending not later than August 31, 1935. Both purported causes of action are based upon the plaintiff’s employment and injuries sustained by the plaintiff during his employment by reason of the defendant’s alleged wrongful acts or omissions.

The defendant opposes the motion upon the ground that it is not timely. I think there is no merit to that contention. There has been no decision on the motion for summary judgment and the parties are in much the same position as if that motion had never been made.

*314A second ground of opposition to the motion is that there has been no proper showing of a basis for approving a departure from the facts as previously alleged by the plaintiff. This, however, should not operate as a bar to the relief asked. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 8 (e), 28 U.S.C.A., following section 723c, a party, may state as many separate claims as he has regardless of consistency. An important factor in the allowance of amendments to pleadings is lack of prejudice to the opposing party. There is no showing in the opposition tó the motion that any substantial rights of the defendant will be affected by allowing the plaintiff to amend.

The final ground of opposition to the motion is that plaintiff’s proposed first cause of action would not be a valid cause of action. It is not the function of the Court to pass on the validity of a proposed pleading on a motion to amend.

The motion is granted.
Exhibit 31(g)

CERTIFICATIONS

** 
I, Carolyn C. Shanks, certify that:  
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Entergy Mississippi, Inc.;  
2.
Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;  
3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;  
4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:   
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;   
b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;   
c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and   
d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and  
5.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and   
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

		/s/ Carolyn C. Shanks			

**