alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Maurice Meyer, Jr., et al., Respondents, v. Albert M. Whisnant, Jr., Appellant, et al., Defendants.

On the testimony of plaintiffs’ own witnesses demonstrating the emergency unexpectedly created in the eastbound lane by the erratic operation of the DeSoto ear that came from the westbound lanes, cut across both eastbound lanes in a southerly direction, and then changed its course in a northwesterly direction into the path of eastbound traffic, plaintiffs failed to establish against defendant, Whisnant, driver of the Cadillac car going eastward, any actionable negligence proximately causing the accident and the injuries. Judgment insofar as appealed from by the defendant Whisnant, reversed and the complaint dismissed, with costs in favor of said defendant. Settle order on notice. Present ■— Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Bergan, JJ.; Cohn and Callahan, JJ., dissent in the following separate memorandums: Cohn, J.: I dissent and vote to reverse and grant a new trial as to the plaintiff Boyle and against the defendant Whisnant, upon the ground that the verdict of the jury in favor of Boyle is excessive. I would affirm as to this plaintiff if he stipulates to a reduction of the verdict to the sum of $30,000. As to plaintiff Meyer, I vote to affirm. The question of defendant Whisnant’s negligence was properly submitted to the jury and its determination thereon is sustained by the evidence. Callahan, J.: I dissent and vote to reverse and order a new trial as against the defendant Whisnant, upon the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence. Settle order on notice.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Sixteenth census of the UnitedStates: 1940: population: nativity and parentage of the white population:country of origin of the foreign stock, by nativity, citizenship, age, andvalue or rent of home, for states and large cities**
 
Parts: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:C 3.940-2:P 81/14
Item Number:0198 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001104312
 
August 14, 2019
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Albert Ricci, Appellant, v. Edward M. Fay, as Warden of Green Haven Prison, Respondent.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing, and for assignment of counsel. Motion denied. The papers submitted on this motion demonstrate that there is no merit to the appeal. (See *People ex rel. Emanuel*v. *McMann,*7 N Y 2d 342.) Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

794 

KA 13-00500 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LESTER A. BRAXTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY F. DUGUAY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Victoria M.

Argento, J.), rendered June 7, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession

of a weapon in the second degree and driving while intoxicated. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon

in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03 [3]) and driving

while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]). Contrary to

defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly,

voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see

generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). We agree with defendant

that County Court’s statement to defendant that, “by pleading guilty,

[he would] give up the right to allege the police unlawfully collected

evidence or did anything else illegal” was misleading to the extent

that it improperly implied that defendant’s right to challenge the

court’s suppression ruling on appeal was automatically extinguished

upon the entry of his guilty plea (see generally People v Moyett, 7

NY3d 892, 892-893; People v Williams, 49 AD3d 1281, 1282, lv denied 10

NY3d 940). Nevertheless, we conclude that “ ‘County Court’s plea

colloquy, together with the written waiver of the right to appeal,

adequately apprised defendant that the right to appeal is separate and

distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of

guilty’ ” (People v Arney, 120 AD3d 949, 949; see People v Ramos, 7

NY3d 737, 738; Williams, 49 AD3d at 1282). Defendant’s valid waiver

of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the court’s

suppression ruling (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833), and his

challenge to the severity of the bargained-for sentence (see Lopez, 6 
-2- 794 

KA 13-00500 

NY3d at 255).

Entered: June 19, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1244

WILLIAM H. LEIGH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ELIZABETH CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY; BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-96-6-2-H-1)

Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William H. Leigh, Appellant Pro Se. John David Leidy, HORNTHAL,

RILEY, ELLIS & MALAND, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William H. Leigh appeals from the district court's order

granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and dismissing

his employment discrimination action alleging violations of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §

2000e-16 (West 1994), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (1994).

Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Leigh failed to establish

a prima facie case of employment discrimination. See McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Alvarado v. Board

of Trustees, 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991). See also O'Connor

v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4243

(U.S. April 1, 1996) (No. 95-354). Moreover, Leigh failed to rebut

the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons Defendants proffered to

support their decision to hire another individual to the position

Leigh sought. See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450

U.S. 248, 254-56 (1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.,

933 F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we cannot say

that the district court's finding of non-discrimination was clearly

erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985).

We therefore affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Leigh v. Elizabeth City Housing Authority, No. CA-96-6-2-H-1

(E.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-
3

rials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                 Exhibit 10.13

                               FortuNet(R), Inc.

Tel.  (702)-796-9090                            2950 Highland Dr.
Fax. (702)-796-9069                             Las Vegas, NV 89109
E-mail. FortuNet.com                            Nevada Lic. 14463-01
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                January 20, 2006

Mr. Harlan Goodson
7485 Rush River Drive
Suite 710-127
Sacramento, California 95831

Dear Mr. Goodson:

      We are very pleased that you have agreed to serve as a member of the Board
of Directors of FortuNet, Inc. This letter sets forth our understandings
regarding your service and the compensation and benefits you will receive for
serving on the Board. This letter supersedes any prior letter related to your
service on the Board and your compensation and benefits related thereto.

      Based upon the information you have provided, we have determined that you
qualify as an independent director under the applicable Nasdaq National Market
rules. You have agreed to serve as the Chairperson of our Nominating and
Compensation Governance Committee as an independent director.

      As a director, you are expected to attend all regular and special meetings
of the Board of Directors and any committees to which you are appointed. We
currently anticipate up to six Board meetings per year, although there may be
more if special meetings are called from time to time. In addition, you will be
expected to attend all meetings of the committees of the Board upon which you
serve.

      For your services, FortuNet will pay you $12,000 as an annual retainer,
payable in four equal quarterly installments, and 1,000 shares of restricted
stock. The stock will also vest in four equal amounts each quarter. FortuNet
will also reimburse you for all travel and other costs you incur in connection
with attending any Board or committee meeting. The above compensation package
will be in effect for the 2006 calendar year. Compensation for periods after the
2006 calendar year will be as determined in the future.

      In addition to the above compensation, FortuNet will indemnify you against
claims made as a result of your service on the Board to the fullest extent
permitted under Nevada corporate law. We expect to obtain a directors' and
officers' liability policy with coverage in the amount of $5,000,000, which will
also cover you for shareholder or other claims as provided in the policy.
<PAGE>
                                                              Mr. Harlan Goodson
                                                                January 20, 2006
                                                                          Page 2



      Again, we are delighted that you have decided to join our Board and we
look forward to working with you as we continue to move FortuNet forward. Please
feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

                                    Sincerely,



                                    Yuri Itkis,
                                    Chairman of the Board
Editorial Note on Part 209
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 209 appear at 68 FR 51361, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 209.7 Conduct of investigations. ( a ) *Periodic compliance reviews.* The Administrator shall from time to time review the practices of recipients to determine whether they are complying with this part.
( b ) *Complaints.* Any person who believes himself or any specific class of individuals to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by this part may by himself or by a representative file with the Administrator a written complaint. A complaint must be filed not later than 90 days from the date of the alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by the Administrator.
( c ) *Investigations.* The Administrator will make a prompt investigation whenever a compliance review, report, complaint, or any other information indicates a possible failure to comply with this part. The investigation should include, where appropriate, a review of the pertinent practices and policies of the recipient, the circumstances under which the possible noncompliance with this part occurred, and other factors relevant to a determination as to whether the recipient has failed to comply with this part.
( d ) *Resolution of matters.* ( 1 ) If an investigation pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section indicates a failure to comply with this part, the Administrator will so inform the recipient and the matter will be resolved by informal means whenever possible. If it has been determined that the matter cannot be resolved by informal means, action will be taken as provided for in § 209.8.
( 2 ) If an investigation does not warrant action pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section the Administrator will so inform the recipient and the complainant, if any, in writing.
( e ) *Intimidatory or retaliatory acts prohibited.* No recipient or other person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 601 of the Act or this part, or because he has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this part. The identity of complainant shall be kept confidential except to the extent necessary to carry out the purposes of this part, including the conduct of any investigation, hearing, or judicial proceeding arising thereunder.
#### Brenda L. MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-16017.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

May 21, 2007.

Mark Daniel Ryan, Bay Minette, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jacob Bartlett McNiel, Charles J. Potts, Alford, Clausen & McDonald, LLC, Mo*829bile, AL, John G. Wheeler, Tupelo, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and FORRESTER,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable J. Owen Forrester, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After review and oral argument, the Court affirms the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant-Appellee on all of the Plaintiff-Appellant’s claims for the reasons outlined in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned orders of October 12, 2006, and December 2, 2005.

AFFIRMED.
# Gazzetta ufficiale L 16I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0707 |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell'Unione europea | L 016I |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Legislazione | 62° anno18 gennaio 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0707

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell'Unione europea

L 016I

Edizione in lingua italiana

Legislazione

62° anno18 gennaio 2019

---

| Sommario | | Rettifiche | pagina |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Rettifica del regolamento di esecuzione (UE) 2019/73 della Commissione, del 17 gennaio 2019, che istituisce un dazio antidumping definitivo e riscuote definitivamente il dazio provvisorio sulle importazioni di biciclette elettriche originarie della Repubblica popolare cinese ( GU L 16 del 18.1.2019 ) | 1 |

Sommario

Rettifiche

pagina

*

Rettifica del regolamento di esecuzione (UE) 2019/73 della Commissione, del 17 gennaio 2019, che istituisce un dazio antidumping definitivo e riscuote definitivamente il dazio provvisorio sulle importazioni di biciclette elettriche originarie della Repubblica popolare cinese ( GU L 16 del 18.1.2019 )

( GU L 16 del 18.1.2019 )

1

| IT | Gli atti i cui titoli sono stampati in caratteri chiari appartengono alla gestione corrente. Essi sono adottati nel quadro della politica agricola ed hanno generalmente una durata di validità limitata.
  I titoli degli altri atti sono stampati in grassetto e preceduti da un asterisco. |
| --- | --- |

IT

Gli atti i cui titoli sono stampati in caratteri chiari appartengono alla gestione corrente. Essi sono adottati nel quadro della politica agricola ed hanno generalmente una durata di validità limitata.

I titoli degli altri atti sono stampati in grassetto e preceduti da un asterisco.

---

Rettifiche

| 18.1.2019 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea | LI 16/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.1.2019

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea

LI 16/1

---

Rettifica del regolamento di esecuzione (UE) 2019/73 della Commissione, del 17 gennaio 2019, che istituisce un dazio antidumping definitivo e riscuote definitivamente il dazio provvisorio sulle importazioni di biciclette elettriche originarie della Repubblica popolare cinese

(
  Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea L 16 del 18 gennaio 2019
  )

Pagina 135, articolo 4

Pagina 135, articolo 4

anziché:

«Il presente regolamento è obbligatorio in tutti i suoi elementi e direttamente applicabile in ciascuno degli Stati membri.»

leggasi:

«Il presente regolamento entra in vigore il giorno successivo alla pubblicazione nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea.»

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
              EXTRACTED FROM THE AMMONIA HOLD, INC. FINANCIAL
              STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
              AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
              SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>  1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          25,910
<SECURITIES>                                   483,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                  989,748
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,275
<INVENTORY>                                    850,688
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,545,684
<PP&E>                                       1,807,589
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,383,671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,608,161
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,638
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,648,591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,383,671
<SALES>                                        479,771
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               479,771
<CGS>                                          297,458
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  417,860
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (232,376)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (232,376)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (232,376)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0614

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

GARY HANSEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 30, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 22 2021

07/22/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0614
#### John Alexander, Respondent, v. The Scottsville Sand and Gravel Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
§ 171.3 Records available on the Department's website. ( a ) Records that are required by the FOIA to be made available for public inspection in an electronic format under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) also are available on the Department's public website. Included on the Department's FOIA home page, *www.foia.state.gov ,* are links to other sites where Department information may be available and to the Department's records disposition schedules. Also available on the FOIA website are certain records released by the Department pursuant to requests under the FOIA and compilations of records reviewed and released in certain special projects. Links to the Department's Privacy Act System of Records Notices are available at *www.state.gov/privacy*. In addition, see 22 CFR part 173 regarding release within the United States of public diplomacy program material generated pursuant to the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1431, *et seq.,* also referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act).
( b ) The Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) is responsible for determining which of its records are required to be made publicly available on its website at *www.stateoig.gov*. OIG will ensure that its website of posted records and indices is reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis.
§ 212.21 Request to amend or correct records. ( a ) An individual has the right to request that the component's FOIA office amend a record pertaining to the individual that the individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete.
( b ) Requests to amend records must be in writing to the component's FOIA office, and mailed or delivered to the Bureau for Management, Office of Management Services, Information and Records Division (for non-OIG records), or the Office of the USAID Inspector General (for OIG records) at the addresses given in § 212.5, with ATTENTION: PRIVACY ACT AMENDMENT REQUEST written on the envelope. The component's FOIA office will coordinate the review of the request with the appropriate offices of the Agency. The component's FOIA office will require verification of personal identity before it will initiate action to amend a record. Amendment requests should contain, at a minimum, identifying information needed to locate the record in question, a description of the specific correction requested, and an explanation of why the existing record is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. The request must be signed, and the requester's signature must be either notarized or made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746. The requester should submit as much pertinent documentation, other information, and explanation as possible to support the request for amendment.
( c ) All requests for amendments to records shall be acknowledged within 10 working days.
( d ) In reviewing a record in response to a request to amend, the Agency shall review the record to determine if it is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete.
( e ) If the Agency agrees with an individual's request to amend a record, it shall: ( 1 ) Advise the individual in writing of its decision;
( 2 ) Amend the record accordingly; and
( 3 ) If an accounting of disclosure has been made, advise all previous recipients of the record of the amendment and its substance.
( f ) If the Agency denies an individual's request to amend a record, it shall advise the individual in writing of its decision and the reason for the refusal, and the procedures for the individual to request further review. See § 171.25 of this chapter.