alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Stone Conveyor Co., Inc., Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Reynolds, J.

Appeal by the alleged employer from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding that two of appellant’s salesmen were employees and not independent contractors for the period January 1,1957 through March 31,1962 and assessing appellant additional contributions for that period. The question of the existence of an employment relationship is factual and thus it is only where we can say as a matter of law that such relationship does not exist that interference with the board’s determination is warranted (e.g., *Matter of Morton [Miller],*284 N. Y. 167). Considering the relationship evidenced in the instant record and particularly the appellant’s control and supervision of the activities of the alleged employees in addition to the other indicia of employment status proven, there is no basis to disturb the board’s evaluation of the ease *(Matter of Feuerbach*v. *Fuller Brush Co.,*16 N Y 2d 582; *Matter of Gordon*v. *New York Life Ins. Co.,*300 N. Y. 652; *Matter of Alson Sanitronic Corp.*[Catherwood], 27 A D 2d 624). Decision affirmed, with costs. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20cr48-TKW

STEVEN J. MCLENDON

_____________________________/

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 

Judge, to which there have been no timely objections, the plea of guilty of the 

Defendant, Steven J. McLendon, to Count One of the indictment is hereby 

ACCEPTED. All parties shall appear before this Court for sentencing as directed.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December 2020.

T. Kent Wetherell, II 

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00048-TKW Document 37 Filed 12/09/20 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Company Form 10-K
 (1)
    
    The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 Dated: March 31, 2008.By:
    
    /s/ Mark D. FreemanMark D. FreemanInterim President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Witold Retinger, Respondent, v Dennis P. Hanifan et al., Appellants.

— In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendants appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 23, 1979, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated April 30,1979, which denied their motion to renew. Order dated January 23, 1979 reversed, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. Appeal from the order dated April 30, 1979 dismissed as academic in light of the determination on the appeal from the order dated January 23, 1979. Defendants are awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on the issue of liability for injuries which he sustained when his vehicle was struck in the rear by a vehicle operated by one of the defendants. Although defendants’ opposition papers were defective in form and relied heavily on inadmissible material, they were nevertheless sufficient to raise an issue of fact. Titone, J. P., Mangano, Rabin and Gibbons, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MEREDITH D. FISHER,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 1:20cv167-MW/GRJ

JOSEPH A. HENDERSON,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 8. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s ‘Complaint to Require 

Performance of a Contract to Convey Real Property,” ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute.” The Clerk shall 

close the file. 

SO ORDERED on October 26, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 1:20-cv-00167-MW-GRJ Document 9 Filed 10/26/20 Page 1 of 1
Amendment No. 3 to Amended and Restated Service Agreement


 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 to 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED SERVICE AGREEMENT 
 dated December 15, 2003 
 by and between 
 AXIS Specialty Limited (the
“Company”) 
 and 
 Michael A. Butt (the “Executive”) 
 Dated May 6, 2009 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into an Employment Agreement as of September 19, 2002; and 
 WHEREAS,
the Company and the Executive entered into an Amended and Restated Service Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of December 15, 2003; 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement as of May 12, 2006 (“Amendment No. 1”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement as of September 19, 2008 (“Amendment No. 2”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to continue the Executive’s service as Chairman of the Company and as Chairman of the Board of Directors of AXIS Capital Holdings Limited and the Executive is willing
to serve in such position; and 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein and the Executive is willing to
continue to serve in his current position under the terms and conditions of this amendment (the “Amendment No. 3”); 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the Company and the Executive agree as follows: 
 Section 1, Term of Service, of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and the following is substituted in lieu thereof: 
 1. Term of Service. The Executive’s term of service under this Agreement (the “Term”) commenced on September 19, 2002 and shall continue through the close of business on
December 31, 2011, subject to earlier termination as provided in Section 8 below. The “Initial Term” shall mean September 19, 







 
2002 through December 31, 2003 and the “New Term” shall mean January 1, 2004 through the close of business on December 31,
2005 and the “Additional New Term” shall mean January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2011. 
 Except as set forth herein, all other
terms and conditions of the Agreement, Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 shall remain in full force and effect. 






 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment No. 3 as of the date first written above.

  

			
	AXIS Specialty Limited
		
	By:	 	 /s/ John J. Murray

	Name:	 	John J. Murray
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President
	
	Executive
	
	 /s/ Michael A. Butt

	Michael A. Butt
##### 



Exhibit 35.2
 SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Re:
    
    Turquoise Card Backed Securities plc  Series 2006-2 and Series 2007-1
  (i)
    
    the Receivables Trust Deed and Servicing Agreement (the RTSA Agreement) dated May 23, 2006
among Turquoise Receivables Trustee Limited, as Receivables Trustee, Turquoise Funding 1
Limited, as Loan Note Issuing Entity and Series 2006-2 Investor Beneficiary, Turquoise Funding
2 Limited, as Dormant Investor Beneficiary and HSBC Bank plc,(ii)
    
    the Series 2006-2 Supplement to the RTSA Agreement (the Series 2006-2 Agreement) dated
November 22, 2007, among Turquoise Receivables Trustee Limited, as Receivables Trustee,
Turquoise Funding 1 Limited, as Loan Note Issuing Entity and Series 2006-2 Investor
Beneficiary, Turquoise Funding 2 Limited, as Dormant Investor Beneficiary and HSBC Bank plc,(iii)
    
    the Series 2007-1 Supplement to the RTSA Agreement (the Series 2007-1 Agreement) dated
June 28, 2007, among Turquoise Receivables Trustee Limited, as Receivables Trustee, Turquoise
Funding 1 Limited, as Loan Note Issuing Entity and Series 2007-1 Investor Beneficiary,
Turquoise Funding 2 Limited, as Dormant Investor Beneficiary and HSBC Bank plc, and(iv)
    
    the Letter Supplementing Servicing Provisions from HSBC Bank plc, dated October 26, 2007 to
and agreed by each of Turquoise Receivables Trustee Limited, as Receivables Trustee, Turquoise
Funding 1 Limited, as Loan Note Issuing Entity, Series 2006-2 Investor Beneficiary and Series
2007-1 Investor Beneficiary, Turquoise Funding 2 Limited, as Dormant Investor Beneficiary, the
Law Debenture Trust Company of New York, as Securities Trustee and the Note Trustee and HSBC
Bank plc (the Servicing Supplement and together with the RTSA Agreement, the Series 2006-2
Agreement and the Series 2007-1 Agreement, the Agreements)
  1.
    
    a review of the activities of the Company for the calendar year ending December 31, 2007 and
of its performance under each of the Agreements has been completed under my supervision; and2.
    
    to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all of its
obligations under each of the Agreements in all material respects throughout the reporting
period referred to above except as set forth below:
  st
 By: 
Name:
    
    /s/ Devesh Mathur

Devesh MathurTitle:
    
    Director, HSBC Electronic Data Processing (India) Private Limited
 33
# 25.301 Contractor personnel in a designated operational area or supporting a diplomatic or consular mission outside the United States.

- 25.301-1 Scope. 
- 25.301-2 Government support. 
- 25.301-3 Weapons. 
- 25.301-4 Contract clause. 

**Parent topic:**Subpart 25.3 - Contracts Performed Outside the United States
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

**AND18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report of GameStop Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe period ended July 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert A. Lloyd, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the bestof my knowledge, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

September 8, 2011 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 4:03-cr-00045-SPM-AK

TORIANO ROBERTS,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 63, Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,

filed by Toriano Roberts. . Pursuant to the Rules Governing § 2255 proceedings, the Court has

reviewed the motion to vacate, and the Government will be required to file an answer or other

appropriate response. If appropriate, the Government shall include the initial brief or other briefs

from the direct appeal and may rely on the statement of facts presented there. Defendant may

respond to the Government's arguments within the time set by this order, but he is not required to

do so.

Upon receipt of the Government's arguments and Defendant's response, if any, the Court

will review the file to determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If an evidentiary

hearing is not required, the Court will dispose of the petition as justice requires pursuant to §

2255 Rule 8(a).

Case 4:03-cr-00045-MW-CAS Document 64 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:03-cr-00045-SPM-AK

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. That the Clerk shall furnish a copy of Defendant's § 2255 motion and this order to the

United States Attorney for this district, who shall file an answer or other appropriate pleading by

April 10, 2006.

2. That if review of the PSR is necessary, the Probation Office shall allow counsel for

the Government to review the PSR upon request.

3. That Defendant shall have until May 10, 2006, to file a response, if desired.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2006.

s/ A. KORNBLUM 

ALLAN KORNBLUM

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:03-cr-00045-MW-CAS Document 64 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RANDY A. HART,

FDOC Inmate No. 075432,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5765/LAC/EMT

SECRETARY DOC, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on

November 20, 2020 (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff was furnished a copy of the Report and

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title

28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

7) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is

DENIED.

Case 3:20-cv-05765-LC-EMT Document 11 Filed 01/05/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

3. This action is DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), without

prejudice to Plaintiff’s initiating a new cause of action accompanied by payment of

the $400.00 filing fee in its entirety.

4. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 5th day of January, 2021.

 s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No.: 3:20cv5765/LAC/EMT

Case 3:20-cv-05765-LC-EMT Document 11 Filed 01/05/21 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RICARDO SANCHES PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-418-AW-MAF

JEFFREY ROSEN1, et al.,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Ricardo Sanches Patterson petitioned for release. ECF Nos. 1, 4. Respondents 

moved to dismiss, contending Mr. Patterson is no longer in custody and that the 

matter is moot. ECF No. 8. Mr. Patterson has not responded to the motion. Nor has 

he filed any objection to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 

No. 10), which recommends I grant the motion. 

I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, and it 

is now incorporated into this order. The clerk will enter a judgment that says “The 

habeas petition is dismissed as moot.” The clerk will then close the file. 

SO ORDERED on January 2, 2021. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

 

1 Among the respondents was United States Attorney General William Barr. 

ECF Nos. 1, 4. Because the Attorney General was sued in his official capacity, his 

successor is automatically substituted as a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

Case 4:20-cv-00418-AW-MAF Document 11 Filed 01/03/21 Page 1 of 1
#### § 501.15 Exceptions.

The Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, may in individual cases make prior, written exceptions to the rules and regulations in this part if he determines it to be not adverse to the public interest.
#### Toni D. Tomashek, Respondent, v Philip J. Tomashek, Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Broome County, entered February 19,1980, which modified a prior order of the court. The Family Court modified a prior support order and directed the appellant to pay for “all medical, dental, and drug expenses of the three children of the parties not covered by insurance”. The prior order had simply incorporated a separation agreement specifically requiring the appellant to provide medical insurance coverage for the children. The appellant’s allegations of error are not persuasive. The record discloses sufficient evidence to support the necessity of a modification and the appellant has no basis for a claim of financial hardship. (See *Matter of Bachman v Carro,*67 AD2d 1030; *Yeackel v Lindstead,*67 AD2d 755.) Order affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43099

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JERMAIN SHERELL WILEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 539

Filed: May 18, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Fremont County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and determinate fifteen-year sentence for attempted first 

degree murder, affirmed. 

Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, LLP; Deborah A. Whipple, Boise, for 

appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Jermain Sherell Wiley pled guilty to attempted first degree murder. I.C. § 18-4001. In 

exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed including an allegation that he 

was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Wiley to a determinate fifteen-year term. 

Wiley appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Wiley’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
24.104 Contract clauses.       When the design, development, or operation of a system of records on individuals is required to accomplish an agency function, the contracting officer shall insert the following clauses in solicitations and contracts:                                       (a) 						            The clause at 52.224-1, Privacy Act Notification.                                          (b) 						            The clause at 52.224-2, Privacy Act.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 24.1 - Protection of Individual Privacy
Case 4:99-cv-00474-WS Document 56 Filed 04/17/01 Page 1 of 2
Case 4:99-cv-00474-WS Document 56 Filed 04/17/01 Page 2 of 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANTIAGO NAVARRO-BERNAL,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 12-73476

Agency No. A095-741-640

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 21, 2014** 

Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Santiago Navarro-Bernal, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

JAN 24 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual determinations. 

Donchev v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and

dismiss in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Navarro-Bernal’s request

for withholding of removal because he failed to establish nexus to a statutorily

protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An

alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or

random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”)

Navarro-Bernal’s contention that the BIA ignored his country-conditions

evidence in evaluating his request for CAT protection is unavailing because the

record contains no indication that the BIA did not consider this evidence. See

Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n alien

attempting to establish that the B[IA] . . . fail[ed] to consider relevant evidence

must overcome the presumption that it did review the evidence.”); see also Cole v.

Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771 (9th Cir. 2011) (“When nothing in the record or the

[agency]’s decision indicates a failure to consider all the evidence, a ‘general

statement that [the agency] considered all the evidence before [it]’ may be

sufficient.” (citation omitted)).

2 12-73476
We lack jurisdiction to consider Navarro-Bernal’s current contention that his

California conviction carries a maximum possible sentence of only six months and

consequently does not bar him from eligibility for cancellation of removal, because

he failed to raise this argument before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d

1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 12-73476