alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Rebecca Wald, Respondent, v Avalon Partners, Inc., Appellant, and Uninsured Employers Fund, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[803 NYS2d 329]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed August 4, 2004, which ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between claimant’s decedent and Avalon Partners, Inc.

Claimant’s husband, a stockbroker affiliated with Avalon Partners, Inc., perished in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Claimant’s application for workers’ compensation death benefits was disallowed by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge who found decedent to be an independent contractor, not an employee. The Board reversed and Avalon appeals.

Whether an employer-employee relationship exists is a question of fact to be resolved by the Board and, so long as the Board’s determination is supported by substantial evidence, it must be upheld *(see Matter of Pilku v 24535 Owners Corp.,*19 AD3d 722, 723 [2005]; *Matter of Taylor v Kranichfeld,*2 AD3d 1099, 1100 [2003]; *Matter of Topper v Cohen’s Bakery,*295 AD2d 872, 872 [2002]; *Matter of Stamoulis v Anorad Corp.,*292 AD2d 657, 657 [2002], *lv denied*98 NY2d 609 [2002]). Factors relevant to the determination include the right to control the alleged employee’s work, the method of payment, the right to dis*821charge and the furnishing of equipment *(see Matter of Pilku v 24535 Owners Corp., supra*at 723; *Matter of Taylor v Kranichfeld, supra*at 1100; *Matter of Topper v Cohen’s Bakery, supra*at 872; *Matter of Stamoulis v Anorad Corp., supra*at 657-658). Claimant testified that decedent worked from home approximately 40% of the time and from the office approximately 60% of the time. Avalon employees testified that they observed decedent working in the office on several occasions, had contact with him and had performed administrative duties for him such as photocopying and transferring phone calls. Despite being paid on a strictly commission basis, decedent was paid through Avalon’s payroll service, taxes were deducted from his paycheck and he received a W-2 form from Avalon. Finally, the testimony of Avalon’s president revealed that he had the right to control aspects of decedent’s work and to discharge him at any time, for any reason. Under these facts, we affirm the Board’s determination to be supported by substantial evidence, despite the existence of evidence which might support a contrary conclusion *(see Matter of Pilku v 24535 Owners Corp., supra*at 724; *Matter of Topper v Cohen's Bakery, supra*at 873; *Matter of Stamoulis v Anorad Corp., supra*at 658).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, with costs to claimant.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 17

- 00658

- CV

A. B. and J. H., Appellant s

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTR ICT COURT OF BELL CO UNTY NO. 284,960

- B, THE H ONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESID ING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM
Appellant J. H. filed his notice of appeal on October 3, 2017 . The appellate record
was complete October 23, 2017 , making appellant ’s brief due November 13, 2017 . On
November 13, 2017 , counsel for J. H. filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief.

T he rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals
from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days

fo r court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting
extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order counsel to file appellant s ’ brief

no later than November 27 , 2017 . If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required
to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.
It is ordered on November 14, 2017

.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Goodwin
§ 19.520 Who places the information into the EPLS? Federal officials who take actions to exclude persons under this part or officials who are responsible for identifying disqualified persons must enter the following information about those persons into the *EPLS*: ( a ) Information required by § 19.515(a);
( b ) The Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of the excluded or disqualified person, including the social security number (SSN) for an individual, if the number is available and may be disclosed under law;
( c ) Information about an excluded or disqualified person, generally within five working days, after— ( 1 ) Taking an exclusion action;
( 2 ) Modifying or rescinding an exclusion action;
( 3 ) Finding that a person is disqualified; or
( 4 ) Finding that there has been a change in the status of a person who is listed as disqualified.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Jack T. Litman on Behalf of Ben Odierno, Appellant, v Warden of the Manhattan House of Detention, Respondent.

[804 NYS2d 78]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Ambrecht, J.), entered on or about July 13, 2005, denying the writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The habeas court properly determined that the bail court (Gregory Carro, J.), did not abuse its discretion in denying bail *(see People ex rel. Lazer v Warden, N.Y. County Men’s House of Detention,*79 NY2d 839 [1992]). The record supports the bail court’s determination, based upon the factors enumerated in CPL 510.30 (2) (a), that petitioner is a flight risk, given the severity of the crime charged (murder), the likelihood of a conviction and lengthy sentence, and the financial resources petitioner could use to facilitate flight, including property outside the ju*259risdiction. This is not an appropriate case for granting bail under special conditions. We have considered and rejected petitioner’s remaining arguments. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Williams, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5                                              
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Feb-22-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             Feb-25-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               Nov-23-1996
<CASH>                                          14,772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   98,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,011
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               188,478
<PP&E>                                       1,103,788
<DEPRECIATION>                                 563,434
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 940,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          167,463
<BONDS>                                        388,359
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           438
<OTHER-SE>                                     351,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   940,307
<SALES>                                         72,949
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               658,006
<CGS>                                           44,741
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  449,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 94,454
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,670
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    54,784
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 106 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 106

 To provide that professional baseball teams, and leagues composed of 
          such teams, shall be subject to the antitrust laws.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Bilirakis (for himself, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Bunning of Kentucky, and 
  Mr. Owens) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide that professional baseball teams, and leagues composed of 
          such teams, shall be subject to the antitrust laws.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDING.

    The Congress finds that the business of providing for profit public 
baseball games between teams of professional baseball players in a 
league and between such teams of rival leagues is in, or affects, 
interstate commerce.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL.

    The antitrust laws shall apply to the business of providing for 
profit public baseball games between teams of professional baseball 
players and to leagues composed of teams of professional baseball 
players.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION.

    For purposes of this Act, the term ``antitrust laws'' has the 
meaning given it in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton 
Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)), except that such term includes section 5 of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent that such 
section 5 relates to unfair methods of competition.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF SECTION 2.

    Section 2 shall not apply with respect to conduct occurring before 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Superior Court of Cincinnati.

#### MARGUERITE C. HALEY v. ABBIECURRIN et al.

Our statute does not require that an assignment of a real estate mortgage must be recorded in order to give the assignment validity as against a creditor of the assignee who secures a judgment after the assignment-

Smith, J.

The defendants Abbie Currin et al. executed their note and mortgage to Marguerite C. Haley, who subsequently brought a suit in foreclosure and on February 20, 1899, secured a judgment against said defendants and an order of sale of the property. The property was sold under said order and the sale confirmed October 29, 1900. The proceeds of sale are now in the hands of the sheriff awaiting distribution.

On December 13. 1899, Rufus Burkhardt, administrator of Frederick Burkhardt 'deceased, secured a judgment against Marguerite C. Haley, -and by leave of court has filed an answer and cross-petition in this case alleging that said Marguerite C. Haley has no property subject to execution and asks the court to subject her interest in the fund realized front the foreclosure sale, to the payment of the judgment.

Upon the hearing of the matter it appears that on 'May second, 1899, said Marguerite C. *338Haley for a valuable consideration transferred her interest in the note and mortgage to Alice L. Collins; and by said subsequent instrument executed June n, 1899, for a valuable consideration transferi-ed the note, mortgage and judgment to the same person. The second instrument was executed for the purpose of curing any possible defects in the first assignment.

Wm. G. Kittredgc, for Burkhardt, Administrator.

Oscar Kuhn, for Mrs. Collins.

Neither of the assignments of the mortgage were placed on record.

The contention of Burkhardt is that an unrecorded mortgage is postponed to a judgment creditor of the mortgagor, and for the same reason an unrecorded assignment of a mortgage is of no validity against a judgment creditor of the mortgagee.

It is undoubtedly true that by force of the statutes of Ohio an unrecorded mortgage is of no validity against a judgment creditor of the mortgagor for the reason that as to third persons the mortgage has no validity until recorded. Mayhan v. Coombs 14 O. 428; Jackson v. Luce, 14 O. 514; White v. Denman, 16 O. 59; S. C., 1 O. St., no; Holliday v. The Franklin Bank of Columbus, 16 O. 533; Bloom v. Noggle, 4 O. S., 54.

But it is not tru.e that when a mortgage is recorded its assignment is not valid as to third persons unless recorded; for in Holliger v. Bates, 43 O. S., 446, the Supreme Court has said:

> “Conceding that a written assignment of the mortgage may, under the statute be recorded and thus be notice to others, yet, the statute does not require it, and a failure to have it done can not divest the assignee of his rights and equities.”

The assignment in this case, therefore, of the mortgage by Marguerite C. Haley to Alice L. Collins is to be preferred to the judgment se■cured by Rufus Burkhardt, administrator ( subsequent to the assignment.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MARIANNE ARCHAMBO, *

* No. 12-291V

Petitioner, * Special Master Christian J. Moran

*

v. * Filed: May 13, 2013

*

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Attorneys’ fees and costs; stipulation of

AND HUMAN SERVICES, * facts; award in the amount to which

* respondent has not objected

Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dennis Woody, Woody & Falkenbach, Media, PA, for Petitioner;

Jennifer L. Reynaud, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

UNPUBLISHED DECISION ON FEES AND COSTS1

Petitioner, Marianne Archambo, filed a stipulation of facts concerning final attorneys’ 

fees and costs in the above-captioned matter on May 2, 2013. Previously, Ms. Arachambo

informally submitted a draft application for attorneys’ fees and costs to respondent for review.

Upon review of petitioner’s application, respondent raised objections to certain items. Based on 

subsequent discussions, petitioner amended her application to request $41,590.76, an amount to 

which respondent does not object. The Court awards this amount. 

On May 7, 2012, Ms. Arachambo filed for compensation alleging that she was injured by 

the influenza vaccine she received. Ms. Arachambo received compensation based upon the 

parties’ stipulation. Decision, filed April 29, 2013. Because Ms. Arachambo received 

compensation, she is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-15(e). 

Ms. Arachambo seeks a total of $41,590.76 in attorneys’ fees and costs for her counsel. 

In compliance with General Order No. 9, Ms. Arachambo filed a statement on May 10, 2013 

indicating that she incurred no out-of-pocket litigation expenses while pursuing this claim.

Respondent has no objection to the amount requested for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

 

1

The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (Dec. 17, 

2002), requires that the Court post this decision on its website. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 18(b), 

the parties have 14 days to file a motion proposing redaction of medical information or other 

information described in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(d)(4). Any redactions ordered by the special 

master will appear in the document posted on the website.
2

After reviewing the request, the court awards a check made payable to petitioner and

petitioner’s attorney in the amount of $41,590.76 for attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs. 

The court thanks the parties for their cooperative efforts in resolving this matter.

The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Christian J. Moran

Christian J. Moran

Special Master

 

2

 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), the parties can expedite entry of judgment by each party filing 

a notice renouncing the right to seek review by a United States Court of Federal Claims judge.
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------


                    Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002
      --------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of HQ Sustainable  Maritime  Industries,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Jean-Pierre  Dallaire,  Principal  Financial and  Accounting  Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 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.


Dated: August 12, 2005

/s/ Jean-Pierre Dallaire
------------------------
Jean-Pierre Dallaire,
Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
**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**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of JACOBS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 29, 2008 (the “Report")
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, John M. Jacobs, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:





(1)  The
      Company’s 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.











Date:
                April 21, 2008/s/John
                M. JacobsJohn
                M. Jacobs,  Chief Executive
                Officer
Order entered March 2, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00025-CV

SHANNON RICE, Appellant

V.

PATRICIA WOOD, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-03744-D

ORDER

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated January 10, 

2020, we notified the Dallas County Clerk that the clerk’s record was overdue. We 

directed the County Clerk to file the record within thirty days. To date, the County 

Clerk has not filed the clerk’s record nor otherwise responded to our notice. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the County District Clerk to file, within TEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, either (1) the clerk’s record, or (2) written 

verification that appellant is not entitled to proceed without payment of costs and 
has not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the record. We notify appellant 

that if we receive verification she is not entitled to proceed without payment of 

costs and has not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record, we 

will, without further notice, dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to:

John Warren

Dallas County Clerk

All parties

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
ex1035.htm


Exhibit 10.35


 



Urigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


501 Silverside Dr., PMB #95


Wilmington, DE, 19809







March 14, 2012







Platinum-Montaur Life Sciences, LLC


152 West 57th Street 4th Floor


New York, NY 10019







 


Gentlemen:


 


Reference is hereby made to: (i) the Fifth Amendment to Transaction Documents (the "Fifth Amendment"), dated on or October 5, 2011, between Urigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") and Platinum-Montaur Life Sciences, LLC ("Platinum"), (ii) the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock issued by the Company on or about August 1, 2007, (iii) the Series C Convertible Preferred Stock issued by the Company on or about April 19, 2010, (iv) the Series A Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock of the Company issued by the Company to Platinum on or about August 1, 2007 (as amended, the "2007 Warrant"), (v) the Series B Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock of the Company issued by the Company to Platinum on or about April 19, 2010 (as amended, the ''2010 Warrant"), (vi) the Series 2011 Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock of the Company issued by the Company to Platinum on or about March 31, 2011, (as amended, the "2011 Warrant"), (vii) the Series October 2011 Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock of the Company issued by the Company to Platinum on or about October 5, 2011, (the “October 2011 Warrant” and, together with the 2007 Warrant, the 2010 Warrant and the 2011 Warrant, the "Warrants").


 


Platinum hereby acknowledges to the following:


 


 



	
1.  

	
The Company has issued various shares of the Company’s common stock between October 1, 2009 and March 14, 2012 at a price equal to or less than $0.10 per share which may cause an adjustment to the Conversion Price, Warrant Price and Warrant Shares, under the Transaction Documents which may have been waived or overlooked at the time these Shares were issued.  Platinum hereby agrees to waive any adjustment to the Conversion Price, Warrant Price and Warrant Shares that would otherwise be triggered by the issuance of such Shares between October 1, 2009 and March 14, 2012.







 



	
2.  

	
Platinum hereby agrees to amend the Transaction Documents to reduce the required Reservation of Common Stock to not less than 100% of the number of shares of Common Stock for which the Series A or Series B Convertible Preferred Stock or the Warrants are at any time convertible.







 



	
3.  

	
Platinum hereby agrees to waive any adjustment to the Conversion Price, Warrant Price, and Warrant Shares for all future issuances of shares of Common Stock of the Company to the Company’s Board of Directors, employees, and consultants.







 


Except as set forth herein, all of the provisions of the Transaction Documents shall remain in full force and effect.


 


 


 




	 	
Very truly yours,


Urigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

	 
	 	 	 	 
	
 

	/s/ Dan Vickery, Chairman	 
	 	Dan Vickery, Chairman	 







 


Agreed and acknowledged


Platinum-Montaur Life Sciences, LLC









	 	 	 	 
	
By:  /s/ Joe Sanfilipo

	 	 	 
	
Joe Sanfilipo

	 	 	 
	
CFO
§ 1026.630 Prohibition on correspondent accounts for foreign shell banks; records concerning owners of foreign banks and agents for service of legal process. ( a ) Refer to § 1010.630 of this chapter.
( b ) [Reserved]
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

JANUARY 20, 2016

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b).

1. Case No. SD33806

Re: STATE OF MISSOURI,

Respondent,

vs. STEVEN LAINE DUFFIELD, JR.,

Appellant.
# L_2019234EN.01003101.xml

| 11.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 234/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 234/31

---

Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/798 of 17 May 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 132 of 20 May 2019
  )

On page 3, the Annex, entry 36, column ‘Name’:

for:

‘Nizar (
  Image 1
  ) al-Asaad (
  Image 2
  ) (a.k.a. Nizar Asaad)’,

read:

‘Nizar (
  Image 3
  ) Al-Assad (
  Image 4
  ) (a.k.a. Al-Asad; Assad; Asad)’.

---