alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Andre Thompson et al., Respondents, v Norma A. Cuadrado, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[717 NYS2d 109]

—Or*152der, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Yvonne Gonzalez, J.), entered August 3, 1999, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss was based on an affirmative defense conclusorily alleging lack of service and defendant’s affidavit asserting that she no longer lived at the address where the nail-and-mail service was allegedly made. The motion was properly denied on the ground that it was made, i.e., mailed to plaintiffs’ attorney, 61 days after service of the answer, in noncompliance with CPLR 3211 (e) limiting the time for making such a motion to 60 days. Defendant’s argument that her time for making the motion was extended by five days, by reason of CPLR 2103 (b) (2), is without merit. In particular, we reject defendant’s argument that in enacting the 1999 amendment to CPLR 5513, which provides for an additional five days to take an appeal when the notice of entry is served by mail regardless of which party serves the notice of entry, the Legislature intended that an additional five days benefit either party in all situations involving service of intermediate papers by mail. A review of the legislative history of the amendment to CPLR 5513 makes clear that the Legislature understood that the five-day extension in CPLR 2103 (b) (2) for time periods measured from service by mail does not, absent specific provision to the contrary, benefit the party making the service by mail. We would note that the only way the defendant could have avoided the 60-day time limit was by a showing of “undue hardship” (CPLR 3211 [e]), which is not present here *(see, Worldcom, Inc. v Dialing Loving Care,*269 AD2d 159; *Abitol v Schiff,*180 Misc 2d 949). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.
§ 521.27 Computation of time. ( a ) In computing any period of time under this part or in an order issued hereunder, the time begins with the day following the act, event, or default, and includes the last day of the period, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday observed by the Federal Government, in which event it includes the next business day.
( b ) When the period of time allowed is less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays observed by the Federal Government shall be excluded from the computation.
( c ) Where a document has been served or issued by placing it in the mail, an additional five days will be added to the time permitted for any response.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0453

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SCOTT KELLY WALSH,

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 March 24, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 14 2022

02/14/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0453
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A22A0041. FREDERIK BUSTAMANTE-HERRERA v. THE STATE.

In 2017, Frederik Bustamante-Herrera pleaded guilty to aggravated sodomy

and enticing a child for indecent purposes. In 2021, he filed a pro se motion alleging

that his sentence is void. On April 9, 2021, the trial court entered an order denying

the motion. On May 6, 2021, Bustamante-Herrera filed a notice of appeal. We lack

jurisdiction because the appeal is untimely.

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the

order on appeal. OCGA § 5-6-38 (a). The proper and timely filing of a notice of

appeal is an absolute requirement to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Davis v. State,

330 Ga. App. 711, 711 (769 SE2d 133) (2015). Here, Bustamante-Herrera’s notice

of appeal was filed 35 days after entry of the trial court’s order. Accordingly, we lack

jurisdiction to consider this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

October 20, 2021

10/20/2021
#### Myer Rosenthal v. United Transportation Company.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Dowling, Smith, Page and Greenbaum, JJ.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                          MARKWEST HYDROCARBON, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                         (000s, except per share data)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                                             For the quarter ended
                                                                                March 31, 1999
                                                                           --------------------------
<S>                                                                        <C> 
Net income                                                                                       111

Weighted average number of outstanding shares of
     common stock                                                                              8,478

Basic earnings per share                                                   $                    0.01
                                                                           ==========================

Net income                                                                                       111

Weighted average number of outstanding shares of
     common stock                                                                              8,478
Dilutive stock options                                                                             3
                                                                           --------------------------
                                                                                               8,481

Earnings per share assuming dilution                                       $                    0.01
                                                                           ==========================
</TABLE>
#### Jean I. Rabinowitz v. Maurice S. Indursky.

Motion for leave to reargue and for resettlement denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Benjamin D. Sherman, Appellant. United Pacific Insurance Co. et al., Respondents.

[715 NYS2d 746]

—In a proceeding to settle the final account of a guardian of an incapacitated person, the guardian appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.), dated May 3, 1999, as awarded an attorney’s fee to the respondents.

*321Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court’s award of an attorney’s fee to the respondent Myriam Zylbernagel, the guardian’s sister, and the respondent United Pacific Insurance Co., the guardian’s surety, was proper. The guardian, the sole beneficiary and executor of his mother’s estate, was removed as her guardian for his refusal to pay her nursing home costs from her assets and, after her death, to turn over certain savings bonds which were then payable to his sister. The attorney’s fee at issue was incurred in connection with the sister’s subsequent petition for the appointment of a special guardian and to compel a final accounting *(see,*Mental Hygiene Law art 81), in which the court, *inter alia,*directed the guardian to turn over the savings bonds. The guardian’s surety properly appeared in the sister’s proceeding since it was exposed to liability by her claim of conversion by the guardian. Furthermore, the broad provisions of the guardian’s indemnity contract entitled the surety to recover an attorney’s fee from the guardian for a fee incurred in that proceeding *(see, Lori-Kay Golf v Lassner,*61 NY2d 722). Thompson, J. P., Luciano, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anibal Rodriquez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered March 8, 1976, convicting defendant of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of from one year to life imprisonment, unanimously reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial directed. Defendant was arrested by a police back-up team on the basis of a description of the seller radioed by two undercover officers who had just completed the "buy”. The transaction took about a minute. The currency for the purchase had been photographed before it was used. The radio message described the seller as "male Hispanic with a brown leather jacket, wearing grey pants and a black flowered shirt and wearing a cap”. The items of clothing to which reference was made were not particularly distinctive. *915Though the back-up team responded at once to the radio call, no person answering the description was observed for about an hour, when defendant came into view. He made no attempt to flee when stopped by the police. After his arrest, defendant was positioned by the police at a street corner in the custody of an officer in uniform and the undercover officers were driven in a taxicab, past the location, in order to verify the identity of the alleged seller; a second trip was required before the undercover officers identified defendant. The undercover officers did not testify to any description of the seller other than as relayed in the radio message. Defendant did not present any evidence or take the stand. The crucial issue concerned the identification of defendant as seller. The District Attorney in summation argued that the officers at the time of sale "knew * * * they would have to make an identification. They would have to give a description. They obviously would be taking notes of these descriptions”. Yet, there was no evidence at trial that such notes were made. Further, the prosecutor in alluding to these alleged descriptions made reference to the "height * * * weight * * * physicial characteristics of the Defendant * * * five foot six * * * one hundred and sixty pounds”, no evidence of which appeared in any officers’ testimony. Defense counsel made no objection to these remarks. In addition, the court’s charge failed to address this issue adequately. It was brief and merely touched upon the opportunity of an identifying witness to observe the person charged with a crime during the commission thereof and the circumstances under which the observation was made. But it did not sufficiently relate the meagre evidence as to identification adduced before the jury with the requirements of law regarding identification. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecutor based his summation on the evidence before the jury *(People v Mezzapella,*19 AD2d 729-730) or that the trial court met its responsibility to "explain the application of the law to the facts” (CPL 300.10, subd 2). Concur—Birns, J. P., Evans, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
Exhibit 10.1





THE MARKED PORTIONS OF THIS AMENDMENT HAVE BEEN OMITTED


AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO


A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT





October 18, 2002





VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL/FIRST CLASS MAIL





Mr. Myles Cyr


Carnival Corporation


3655 NW 87 th Avenue


Miami, Fl 33178





Re:    Third Amendment to Interactive Television System Agreement dated February 20, 2001, by and between Allin Interactive Corporation and
Carnival Cruise Lines (hereinafter Third Amendment)





Dear Myles:





This letter is to amend the Interactive Television System Agreement (the Agreement) dated February 20, 2001, by and between Allin Interactive corporation (Allin) and
Carnival Cruise Lines (CCL). Capitalized terms shall have the meaning as set forth in Section 1 of that Agreement.





Whereas,
Schedule 1.9 of the Agreement set forth an Installation Schedule for the Agreement; and





Whereas, Schedule 1.11 of the Agreement sets
forth Purchase Prices and Payment Schedules under the Agreement, and





Whereas, the parties desire to amend Schedules 1.9 and 1.11;





Now, therefore, Schedule 1.9  Installation of Schedule is amended as follows:





Add the Carnival Glory. Date Installed of 4/01/2003 and Date Operational of 5/31/2003. Newbuild.





Now, therefore, the Schedule 1.11 of the Agreement is amended as follows:





A.    Add Carnival Glory. ClassGlory. Cabins1,487. Price$[REDACTED  CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT REQUESTED].





The Payment Schedule shall remain in accordance with the terms of Schedule 1.11 of the Agreement.





In witness whereof, this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the date first above written.








ALLIN INTERACTIVE CORPORATION





By:

/s/    RICHARD W. TALARICOIts:

Chairman and CEO








CARNIVAL CRUISE
LINES, a division of Carnival Corporation





By:

/s/    MYLES CYRIts:

Vice President and CAO 10/25/02
```

[Federal Register: August 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 150)]
[Notices]               
[Page 47338]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05au10-107]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7079]

 
Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determinations: ``The Emperor's Private Paradise, Treasures from the 
Forbidden City''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 
236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``The Emperor's Private Paradise, Treasures 
from the Forbidden City,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The 
objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign 
owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of 
the exhibit objects at the Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts, 
from on or about September 14, 2010, until on or about January 9, 2011, 
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about 
February 3, 2011, until on or about May 1, 2011, the Milwaukee Art 
Museum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from on or about June 11, 2011, until on 
or about September 12, 2011, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: July 30, 2010.
Ann Stock,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-19319 Filed 8-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
Exhibit 10.6

To:
Title:
Date:    February 26, 2004

Dear        ,

This
letter is being provided to you to explain the benefits you are eligible to receive, in the event that your employment is involuntarily terminated by Sabre Inc. [include "or any of it's subsidiaries or affiliates" if
needed]("Sabre" or the "Company") for any reason other than for "cause"
(as defined in Sabre Holdings most recent Long Term Incentive Plan) or for non-performance. In order to be eligible to receive the benefits provided for herein, you must agree to the
revocation of the January 29, 2003 letter provided to you regarding severance benefits, and acknowledge your agreement by signing below in the space provided and returning a copy of this letter
to Sondra Radigonda in Executive Compensation.

The
benefits are as follows:



1

---







2

---





QuickLinks
### §3796ee–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796ee–4 was editorially reclassified as section 10405 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### Roosevelt JAMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 81-6017

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 6, 1982.

Roosevelt James, pro se.

Raymond L. Marky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent-appellee.

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, JOHNSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is a Florida habeas case by a prisoner convicted of second degree murder. Denial of the writ is AFFIRMED.

Primary evidence against petitioner in his jury trial was a transcript, read to the jury by the court reporter, of an eyewitness’ testimony given nine months earlier at a preliminary hearing. The witness was sworn before testifying at the preliminary hearing and was subjected to cross-examination by petitioner’s attorney. The witness died after the preliminary hearing and before the trial. Use of this testimony under these circumstances was constitutionally permissible. *Ohio v. Roberts,*448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); *California v. Green,*399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970); *Mattox v. U. S.,*156 U.S. 237, 15 S.Ct. 337, 39 L.Ed.2d 409 (1895).

When the transcript of the eyewitness’ testimony was introduced the court instructed that the jury was to consider the testimony the same as though the witness were testifying before them in court. Defense counsel objected, and the judge then stated that he only meant to emphasize that *103the deceased witness had been testifying under oath at the preliminary hearing. As explained by the court, the instruction was not erroneous.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 243 (Monday, December 20, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 76018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27762]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permit Applications Received Under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-541)

AGENCY: National Science Foundation

ACTION: Notice of Permit Modification Received under the Antarctic 
Conservation Act of 1978, Public law 95-541.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a 
notice of requests to modify permits issued to conduct activities 
regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has 
published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at title 45 
part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required 
notice of a requested permit modification.

DATES: Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, 
or views with respect to this permit application by January 19, 2004. 
Permit applications may be inspected by interested parties at the 
Permit Office, address below.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, 
Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy at the above address 
or (703) 292-7405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Science Foundation, as directed 
by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), as amended 
by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has 
developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for 
various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and 
certain geographic areas as requiring special protection. The 
regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic 
Specially Protected Areas.
    Description of Permit Modification Requested: The Foundation issued 
a permit (2000-001) to Dr. Steven Emslie on September 21, 1999. The 
issued permit allows the applicant to enter various Antarctic Specially 
Protected Areas on an opportunistic basis to conduct surveys and 
excavate modern and abandoned penguin colonies. The permit also allows 
for the collection of organic remains (bones, feathers, eggshell 
fragments, etc.).
    The applicant requests a modification to his permit to allow access 
to the Antarctic Specially Protected Area at Cape Adare (ASPA 
<greek-i>158) and associated huts and artifacts to collect historic 
penguin tissue.
    Location: ASPA 158--Huts and Associated Artifacts, Cape Adare.
    Dates: January 1, 2005, to January 31, 2005.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs.
[FR Doc. 04-27762 Filed 12-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
### §1962d–11. Authorization of appropriation for Delmarva Peninsula study

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $500,000 to carry out the provisions of sections 1962d–7 to 1962d–11 of this title: Provided, That nothing in such sections shall prevent the expenditure of other funds appropriated to the United States Geological Survey for studies and activities performed under its general authority.

(Pub. L. 89–618, §5, Oct. 4, 1966, 80 Stat. 871; Pub. L. 102–154, title I, Nov. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1000.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Water Resources Planning Act which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"United States Geological Survey" substituted in text for "Geological Survey" pursuant to provision of title I of Pub. L. 102–154, set out as a note under section 31 of Title 43, Public Lands.
### §5603. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5603 was editorially reclassified as section 11103 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 91.3 Assistance to Customs and Tariff Commission representatives.

Consular officers shall render all proper assistance to Customs and Tariff Commission representatives abroad to aid them in the performance of their official duties.