alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jean Hines, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

[977 NYS2d 238]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered November 16, 2012, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiff’s second motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously modified, to grant the motion as to defendants New York City Transit Authority and Atlantic Paratrans of NYC, Inc., and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs motion is properly considered one for renewal, since she submitted a properly notarized affidavit of a nonparty witness, thereby correcting an error in the original papers *(see Mejia v Nanni,*307 AD2d 870, 871 [1st Dept 2003]; CPLR 2221 [e]). The court has discretion to relax the requirement that a motion to renew be based on newly discovered evidence or evidence not previously available, and to grant such a motion in the interest of justice, absent prejudice to the opposing party resulting from any delay *(see Mejia v Nanni,*307 AD2d at 871; *Shaw v Looking Glass Assoc., LP,*8 AD3d 100, 102 [1st Dept 2004]).

*529Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment on liability as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that she was crossing the street, within the crosswalk, with a “walk” sign in her favor, when defendants’ vehicle, which was making a left turn, struck her *(see Perez-Hernandez v M. Marte Auto Corp.,*104 AD3d 489, 490 [1st Dept 2013]). The affidavits from the nonparty eyewitnesses and the police report confirm plaintiff’s version of the accident.

Defendants, in turn, failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to comparative negligence. Plaintiff averred that she looked both ways before entering the intersection and continued to look for traffic as she crossed the street, and that she could not have avoided the accident because she only noticed defendants’ vehicle, which was moving quickly, a “split second” prior to being struck. Contrary to the assertion of defendant driver, the position of plaintiff’s body after impact is not probative as to whether she was walking in the cross-walk prior to being struck.

The motion was properly denied as to defendant Metropolitan Transit Authority since plaintiffs motion to renew did not challenge the motion court’s finding in the order denying summary judgment that she failed to demonstrate the MTA’s alleged ownership of the subject vehicle.

We have considered and rejected defendants’ further arguments. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 37 Misc 3d 838.]
EXB 10.1 - 06.30.2013






Exhibit 10.1


MASTERCARD INCORPORATED 
SCHEDULE OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS’ ANNUAL COMPENSATION 
Effective as of June 18, 2013 
 
	
				
	 
	 
	 
	 

	ANNUAL RETAINER
	 
	AMOUNT

	Service as a Director
	 
	$
	100,000

	Service as Chairman of the Board
	 
	$
	150,000

	 
	 

	COMMITTEE SERVICE RETAINER
	 
	AMOUNT

	Audit Committee Member
	 
	$
	15,000

	Human Resources and Compensation Committee Member
	 
	$
	10,000

	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Member
	 
	$
	10,000

	Audit Committee Chairperson
	 
	$
	25,000

	Human Resources and Compensation Committee Chairperson
	 
	$
	20,000

	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Chairperson
	 
	$
	20,000

	 
	 

	EQUITY AWARDS(1)
	 
	AMOUNT

	 
	 
	 
	 

	Director
	 
	$
	150,000

	Chairman of the Board
	 
	$
	200,000




 
	
			
	 
	(1)
	Represents a grant of deferred stock units, restricted stock or alternative awards under the MasterCard Incorporated 2006 Non-Employee Director Equity Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), as amended and restated as of June 5, 2012.  The Plan was initially adopted by stockholders of MasterCard Incorporated (the “Company”) at its annual meeting of stockholders on July 18, 2006.  Stockholders approved the amended and restated Plan at the Company’s annual meeting of stockholders on June 5, 2012. Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, as amended and restated, on the date of an annual meeting of stockholders in each year for so long as the Plan remains in effect, each non-employee director who is elected at such annual meeting or whose term of office will continue after the date of such annual meeting, will automatically be awarded a number of either deferred stock units, restricted stock or an alternative award determined by dividing $150,000 ($200,000 in the case of the Chairman of the Board) by the closing price for the Company’s Class A common stock, par value $0.0001, on the exchange on which the shares are principally traded for the date of such annual meeting of stockholders.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7733
CLYDE FRANK YOUNG, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LONNIE SAUNDERS, Warden; L. R. DAY, Assistant Warden; S. HOLLAR, Warden, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-00-791-7) Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clyde Frank Young, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Clyde Frank Young appeals the district court’s order denyingrelief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Young v. Saunders , No. CA-00-791-7 (W.D. Va. Nov. 22, 2000). We dispense with 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.

AFFIRMED
EX-10.2



 Exhibit No. 10.2 
 Schedule of Directors and Officers – Form of Indemnification Agreement 
 Set forth
below is a list of Directors and Officers who have entered into the form of Indemnification Agreement with Armstrong World Industries, Inc. filed as Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 4, 2010: 

Stanley A. Askren (Director) 
 Kevin R. Burns
(Director) 
 Matthew J. Espe (Director/Officer) 
 James J. Gaffney (Director) 
 Victor D. Grizzle (Officer) 

Mark A. Hershey (Officer) 
 Tao Huang (Director)

 Michael F. Johnston (Director) 

Jeffrey Liaw (Director) 
 Donald R. Maier
(Officer) 
 Thomas B. Mangas (Officer) 

Stephen F. McNamara (Officer) 
 Larry S.
McWilliams (Director) 
 James C. Melville (Director) 
 James J. O’Connor (Director) 
 Stephen H. Poole (Officer) 

Frank J. Ready (Officer) 
 John J. Roberts
(Director) 
 Ellen R. Romano (Officer) 

Richard E. Wenz (Director)
Exhibit
31.1




302(a)
CERTIFICATIONS


I,
Hans-Werner Huss, certify that:





1.
 I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Integrated
Micrometallurgical Systems, 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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.
 The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15) and internal control over
financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the small business issuer and we have:





a)
 designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, 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)
 evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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.





5.
 The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer’s
auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):





a)
 all significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal
control over financial reporting.





Date: November
20, 2007




/s/H.WernerHuss





H.
Werner Huss,


President
and Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jairo Panamiero, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 916]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County *730(J. Goldberg, J.), rendered February 8, 2005, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Adams, J.E, Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Richard Lazzari, Respondent, v Town of Eastchester et al., Appellants, and Paula Redd Zeman, as Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Human Resources, et al. Respondents.

Submitted September 4, 2012;

decided September 6, 2012

Motion by New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2** **CHIEF    FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**     I, J. Clarke Gray, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual    Report on    Form 10-K/A    of BKF Capital Group, 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. 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 in    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 disclosures    controls and procedures, as of the end of he 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     4. 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 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 controls 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/  J. CLARKE GRAY    J. Clarke Gray    Chief Financial Officer     Date: May 1, 2006
1The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. MELLOY, United States District Judge for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-2653

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

David Steil, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2001

Filed: March 23, 2001

___________

Before LOKEN, HEANEY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

David Steil pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and

conspiracy to commit bank burglary in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 and 18

U.S.C. § 371. At sentencing, the district court1 granted the government’s substantial

assistance motion under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 and imposed concurrent sentences of 132

months on the drug conspiracy count and 60 months on the burglary conspiracy count.
-2-

On appeal, Steil first argues the district court erred in applying the 1997 Sentencing

Guidelines to his drug conspiracy offense, instead of the 1995 Guidelines, because his

criminal conduct occurred primarily during August, September, and October of 1997,

before the effective date of the 1997 Guidelines. Steil further argues the district court

abused its discretion in departing downward only to 132 months, rather than 120

months, his mandatory minimum sentence. These contentions are not reviewable on

appeal because Steil’s sentence of 132 months is below the bottom of his guidelines

range, whether determined under the 1995 or the 1997 Guidelines, and because we lack

authority to review the extent of the district court’s downward departure. See United

States v. Puckett, 147 F.3d 765, 772 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Baker, 64 F.3d

439, 441 (8th Cir. 1995).

Steil has also filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief to address

issues he believes are raised by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Apprendi v.

New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). We are satisfied there was no plain error under

Apprendi. Steil agreed to and did plead guilty to an information charging him with

conspiring to distribute more than 1000 grams of methamphetamine. In addition,

Steil’s sentence of 132 months is less than the statutory maximum penalty for

distributing any quantity of methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C); United

States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 934 (8th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the motion

is denied, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/10/15 5:01:41 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          78,307
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          84,155
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                55,630
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    602,136
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         461,454
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           464,261
<LOANS>                                      3,091,024
<ALLOWANCE>                                     34,069
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,548,436
<DEPOSITS>                                   3,288,157
<SHORT-TERM>                                   530,187
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             52,195
<LONG-TERM>                                    268,843
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              354
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     408,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               4,548,436
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                169,825
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               10,152
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                56,376
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               236,353
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             107,025
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             137,494
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           98,859
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 75,322
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,962
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      37,008
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (403)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    36,605
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.07
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,175
<LOANS-PAST>                                     5,908
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   857
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 23,226
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                35,965
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,632
<RECOVERIES>                                       736
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               34,069
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            34,069
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kareem Fauntleroy, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 395]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated February 22, 1999 *(People v Fauntleroy,*258 AD2d 664 [1999]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered October 15, 1996.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Dickerson and Austin, JJ, concur.
EX-10.1



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT (this
“Amendment”) is made and entered into as of July 23, 2013 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Robert L. Parkinson, Jr. (the “Executive”) and Baxter International Inc. (the “Company”); 

WITNESSETH THAT: 
 WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Employment Agreement dated as of April 19, 2004, which was subsequently amended and restated effective December 12, 2008 (the “2008 Agreement”)
pertaining to the employment of the Executive by the Company; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this Amendment to
amend the 2008 Agreement; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth below, the
Executive and the Company hereby agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Section 4(d)(vii) is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

  

	 	“(vii)	In no event, however, shall the Executive be entitled to receive any amounts, rights, or benefits under this paragraph 4(d) unless he executes a release of claims. Such
release shall be furnished to the Executive for his review not later than seven business days following the Date of Termination, and shall be executed and returned to the Company in sufficient time so that any period during which the Executive may
revoke such release shall expire not later than sixty (60) days after the Date of Termination. Any amounts under this paragraph 4(d) that, in the absence of the foregoing release requirement, would have been paid before the revocation period
expires shall be paid to the Executive, without interest, as soon as practical after the revocation period expires; provided, however, that if the sixtieth (60th) day following the Date of Termination falls in the calendar year after the year
that includes the Date of Termination, no such amount that constitutes a form of deferred compensation subject to Section 409A shall be paid earlier than the first day of the calendar year following the year that includes the Date of
Termination.” 

  

	 	2.	Sections 4(d)(viii)(B) and (C) are deleted and replaced with the following new Section 4(d)(viii)(B): 


 

	 	“(B)	To the extent required by Section 409A, no Severance Payments shall be payable to Executive until the earlier of the first business day that is at least six months
after the Date of Termination, or the date of Executive’s death, at which time all Severance Payments that would otherwise have been paid to him during such period shall be paid in a lump sum, without interest.” 


The Executive has hereunto set his hand, and the Company has caused these presents to be executed in its name and on its behalf, all as
of the date first stated above. 
  

	
	 /s/ Robert L. Parkinson, Jr.

	Robert L. Parkinson, Jr.
	
	BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC.
	
	 /s/ John D. Forsyth

	John D. Forsyth, Director
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C
SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of China Tel Group, Inc., a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30,
2008, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), I, George Alvarez, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C Section
1350), 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 results of operations of the
      Company.





By:
/s/ George Alvarez


George
Alvarez


Chief
Executive Officer


August
15, 2008





[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Tel Group, Inc. and will be retained by China Tel Group, Inc. and
furnished to the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.]