alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Nichol Turner, as Administratrix of the Estate of Robert Turner, Jr., Deceased and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Lisa M. Turner and Another, Infants, Plaintiff, v Robert Turner, Sr., et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Nichol Turner, as Administratrix of the Estate of Robert Turner, Jr., Deceased, and as Parent and Natural Guardian of Lisa M. Turner and Another, Infants, Appellant, v Merchants Mutual Insurance Company et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

(Appeal No. 2.)

[629 NYS2d 139]

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: In 1986 plaintiff commenced an action (No. 1), as administratrix of her husband’s estate and on behalf of her infant children against Robert Turner, Sr. (Turner), to recover damages for the pain and suffering and wrongful death of decedent. In 1990 plaintiff commenced this action (No. 2) against defendants Merchants Mutual Insurance Company (Merchants Mutual) and Home Mutual Insurance Company (Home Mutual) seeking, *inter alia,*a declaration of *912plaintiffs rights under the policies of insurance issued by them to Turner, requiring that they indemnify and provide a defense to Turner in plaintiffs action No. 1 against Turner, and to provide workers’ compensation coverage to the estate of the deceased. On July 14, 1994, Supreme Court dismissed the complaint in action No. 1 against Turner as abandoned *(see,*CPLR 3215 [c]). Thereafter, on July 19, 1994, the court concluded that the part of plaintiffs action No. 2 seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to the liability insurance policies issued by Merchants Mutual and Home Mutual had become moot upon the dismissal of plaintiffs action No. 1. We affirm.

We reject the contention of plaintiff that the court erred in appointing a guardian ad litem to pursue a workers’ compensation claim on behalf of her infant children. A court has discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect an infant’s interest if it appears that an infant’s natural guardian is not properly protecting the infant’s interest *(see,*CPLR 1202; *Dicupe v City of New York,*124 AD2d 542, 543-544). The abandonment by plaintiff of a workers’ compensation claim in 1987 and her failure to pursue action No. 1 diligently fully supports the court’s determination to appoint a guardian ad litem. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.
Form 

# LLC-5.5 **Illinois Limited Liability Company Act** 



### Articles of Organization **FILE # Secretary of State Jesse White**  Department of Business Services Limited Liability Division www.cyberdriveillinois.com 1. Limited Liability Company Name: Address of Principal Place of Business where records of the company will be kept: Articles of Organization effective on the filing date . Registered Agent’s Name and Registered Office Address: Purpose for which the Limited Liability Company is organized: “The transaction of any or all lawful business for which Limited Liability Companies may be organized under this Act.” The LLC is to have perpetual existence. The Limited Liability Company

I affirm, under penalties of perjury, having authority to sign hereto, that these Articles of Organization are to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, correct and complete. Dated: **Name and Address of Organizer** 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7.

8. **Filing Fee: Expedited Fee:**  **Approved By: $500**  **$100**

This document was generated electronically at www.cyberdriveillinois.com **FILED Jesse White**  **Secretary of State**
§ 102-33.265 What must we do with aircraft that are excess to our needs? If aircraft are excess to your needs, you must: ( a ) Reassign the aircraft within your agency if any of your sub-agencies can use the aircraft; or
( b ) Report the aircraft as excess property to GSA (see 41 CFR part 102-36) if none of your sub-agencies can use the aircraft.
§ 62.1 Purpose. ( a ) The Coast Guard administers the U.S. Aids to Navigation System. The system consists of Federal aids to navigation operated by the Coast Guard, aids to navigation operated by the other armed services, and private aids to navigation operated by other persons.
( b ) ( 1 ) This part describes the general characteristics of the U.S. Aids to Navigation System, and the details, policies and procedures employed by the Coast Guard in establishing, maintaining, operating, changing or discontinuing Federal aids to navigation. Regulations concerning the marking of wrecks, structures, and other obstructions are found in 33 CFR part 64. Regulations concerning private aids are found in 33 CFR part 66. Regulations concerning the marking of artificial islands and structures which are erected on or over the seabed and subsoil of the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States or its possessions are found in 33 CFR part 67. Regulations concerning the marking of bridges are found in 33 CFR part 118. Regulations concerning aids to navigation at deepwater ports are found in subchapter NN of this chapter.
( 2 ) The regulations found in 33 CFR subpart 66.10 expire on December 31, 2003, at which time the provisions of this part will apply.
( c ) The Coast Guard maintains systems of marine aids to navigation consisting of visual, audible, and electronic signals which are designed to assist the prudent mariner in the process of navigation. The aids to navigation system is not intended to identify every shoal or obstruction to navigation which exists in the navigable waters of the United States, but rather provides for reasonable marking of marine features as resources permit. The primary objective of the aids to navigation system is to mark navigable channels and waterways, obstructions adjacent to these waterways, and obstructions in areas of general navigation which may not be anticipated. Other waters, even if navigable, are generally not marked.
[CGD 86-031, 52 FR 42640, Nov. 6, 1987, as amended by CGD 88-018, 54 FR 48608, Nov. 24, 1989; CGD 97-018, 63 FR 33573, June 19, 1998]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 26, 2016

d0718 

# Order

Clerk July 26, 2016

150747

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150747

COA: 317971

Wayne CC: 13

- 000351

- FC

HERBERT KEETH,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 13, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we a re not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 38518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15560]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the United States Commission on National Security/21st 
Century

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense 
(Policy).

ACTION:  Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century 
will meet in closed session on June 26-27, 2000. The Commission was 
originally chartered by the Secretary of Defense on 1 July 1998 
(charter revised on 18 August 1999) to conduct a comprehensive review 
of the early twenty-first century global security environment; develop 
appropriate national security objectives and a strategy to attain these 
objectives; and recommend concomitant changes to the national security 
apparatus as necessary. This meeting is being announced less than 
fifteen days before the meeting dates due to scheduling difficulties.
    The Commission will meet in closed session on June 26-27, 2000, to 
receive updates on Phase Three research and analysis and to provide 
overall guidance on the structure and content of the Phase Three 
report. Also, the Commissioners will receive a briefing on Consequence 
Management. By Charter, the Phase Three report is to be delivered to 
the Secretary of Defense no later than February 16, 2001.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended [5 U.S.C., Appendix II], it is 
anticipated that matters affecting national security, as covered by 5 
U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)(1988), will be presented throughout the meeting, and 
that, accordingly, the meeting will be closed to the public.

DATES: Monday and Tuesday, June 26 and 27, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The Airlie Center, 6809 Airlie Road, Warrenton, VA 20187.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Keith A. Dunn, National Security 
Study Group, Suite 532, Crystal Mall 3, 1931 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, VA 22202-3805. Telephone 703-602-4175.

    Dated: June 15, 2000.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-15560 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
#### § 102-75.625 Which Federal agency is assigned surplus real property for public park or recreation purposes?

The head of the disposal agency or his or her designee is authorized to assign to the Secretary of the Interior for disposal under 40 U.S.C. 550(e), surplus real property, including buildings, fixtures, and equipment as recommended by the Secretary as being needed for use as a public park or recreation area for conveyance to a State, political subdivision, instrumentalities, or municipality.
#### § 102-80.25 What are Federal agencies' responsibilities concerning the management of indoor air quality?

Federal agencies must assess indoor air quality of buildings as part of their safety and environmental facility assessments. Federal agencies must respond to tenant complaints on air quality and take appropriate corrective action where air quality does not meet applicable standards.
§ 102-193.15 What are the records management responsibilities of the Administrator of General Services (the Administrator), the Archivist of the United States (the Archivist), and the Heads of Federal agencies? ( a ) The Administrator of General Services (the Administrator) provides guidance and assistance to Federal agencies to ensure economical and effective records management. Records management policies and guidance established by GSA are contained in this part and in parts 102-194 and 102-195 of this chapter, records management handbooks, and other publications issued by GSA.
( b ) The Archivist of the United States (the Archivist) provides guidance and assistance to Federal agencies to ensure adequate and proper documentation of the policies and transactions of the Federal Government and to ensure proper records disposition. Records management policies and guidance established by the Archivist are contained in 36 CFR chapter XII and in bulletins and handbooks issued by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
( c ) The Heads of Federal agencies must comply with the policies and guidance provided by the Administrator and the Archivist.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARICELA RAMIREZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. MELANIE PARKER, M.D.; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No s

. 16

- 35131 16

- 35367

D.C. No. 3:13

- cv
- 01772

- AC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal s from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017 **

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Marciela Ramirez appeals pro se from the

district court’ s orders denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion and her motion for an
extension of time to file a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pincay v . Andrews , 389 F.3d 853,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes th ese case s are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 4 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 35131

858 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (motion for extension of time to file a notice of
appeal); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262
(9th Cir. 1993) ( motion for re consideration under Rule 60). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez’ s Rule 60

motion s for reconsideration because Ramirez failed to demonstrate any basis for

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J , 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for

reconsideration under Rule 60(b)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez’s untimely
motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal because Ramirez failed to

demonstrate good cause or excusable neglect. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)
(district court may extend time for filing notice of appeal upon showing of good
cause or excusable neglect); Pincay , 389 F.3d at 85 8

- 60 ( disc ussi ng excusable
neglect and explaining that this court must affirm unless there is a defin ite and firm

conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment); Ghazali v.

Moran , 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) ( “[P] ro se litigants are bound by the rules of
procedure .” ).
We reject as without merit Ramirez’s contention that the dis trict court
discriminated against her on the basis of race

.3 16

- 35131

We do not consider Ramirez’s contentions regarding the district court’s
orders entered before January 25, 2016, because they are not within the scope of

t his appeal

.
We do not consider matters no t specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 102-73.235 What is the maximum lease term that a Federal agency may agree to when it has been delegated lease acquisition authority from GSA?

Pursuant to GSA's authority to enter into lease agreements contained in 40 U.S.C. 585(a)(2), agencies delegated the authorities outlined herein may enter into leases for the term specified in the delegation. In those cases where agency special purposes space delegations include the authority to acquire unimproved land, the land may be leased only on a fiscal year basis.
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5635

To amend the National Labor Relations Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 14, 2000

Mr. HUTCHINSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROPERTY ACCESS.

4 Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act

5 is amended by adding after ‘‘section 7’’ the following:

6 ‘‘Provided, That in the case of a published, written, or

7 posted no solicitation or no access rule, an exception for

8 charitable, eleemosynary, or other beneficent purposes

9 shall not be grounds for finding an unfair labor practice’’.

Æ
cnat-ex104_169.htm



Exhibit 10.4

 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is dated as of the July 31, 2019, by and between Conatus Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the “Company”), and Alfred P. Spada, Ph.D. (“Employee”).

 

WHEREAS, the Company and Employee are parties to that certain Employment Agreement, effective as of December 17, 2008, and Amendment to Employment Agreement, effective as of July 2, 2013 (collectively “Original Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, the Company and Employee desire to amend the Original Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, the parties agree as follows:

1.Section 1(e)(iii) of the Original Agreement.  Section 1(e)(iii) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended and restated to read as follows:

“(iii)a material change in the geographic location at which Employee must perform his or her duties (and the Company and Employee agree that any requirement that Employee be based at any place outside a 25-mile radius of his or her place of employment as of the Effective Date, except for reasonably required travel on the Company’s or any successor’s or affiliate’s business that is not materially greater than such travel requirements prior to the Effective Date, shall be considered a material change); or”

2.Miscellaneous.  This Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Original Agreement.  All other terms and provisions of the Original Agreement shall remain unchanged except as specifically modified herein.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.  This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and to be performed wholly within such State, and without regard to the conflicts of laws principles thereof.  This Amendment may not be amended or modified otherwise than by a written agreement executed by the parties hereto or their respective successors and legal representatives.

(Signature Page Follows)

 

 

 

 



 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date(s) set forth below.

 


	
 
	
 
	
 
	
CONATUS PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Dated:
	
July 31, 2019
	
 
	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Steven J. Mento, Ph.D.

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Name:
	
 
	
Steven J. Mento, Ph.D.

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Title:
	
 
	
President & Chief Executive Officer

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
EMPLOYEE

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
Dated:
	
July 31, 2019
	
 
	
/s/ Alfred P. Spada, Ph.D.

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Alfred P. Spada, Ph.D.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 564

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 3, 1999

Mr. THORNBERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of the Internal Reve5 nue Code of 1986 (relating to estate, gift, and generation6 skipping taxes) is hereby repealed.

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub8 section (a) shall apply to estates of decedents dying, gifts

9 made, and generation-skipping transfers made after the

10 date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### § 102-74.425 What is the policy concerning dogs and other animals on Federal property?

No person may bring dogs or other animals on Federal property for other than official purposes. However, a disabled person may bring a seeing-eye dog, a guide dog, or other animal assisting or being trained to assist that individual.
#### § 105-72.103 Deviations.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) may grant exceptions for classes of grants or recipients subject to the requirements of this regulation when exceptions are not prohibited by statute. However, in the interest of maximum uniformity, exceptions from the requirements of this regulation shall be permitted only in unusual circumstances. Federal awarding agencies may apply more restrictive requirements to a class of recipients when approved by OMB. Federal awarding agencies may apply less restrictive requirements when awarding small awards, except for those requirements which are statutory. Exceptions on a case-by-case basis may also be made by Federal awarding agencies.
November 3, 2022

VIA EMAIL

Equity Prime Mortgage, LLC

ATTN: Majed Qminacci and Eddy Perez

Majed@epm.net and Eddy@epm.net

Re: Notice of Intent to Terminate Sponsorship Agreement Between Equity Prime Mortgage, 

LLC and Jesse Iwuji Motorsports, LLC, Dated November 30, 2021

To Whom It May Concern:

This notice is provided to you in compliance with the terms set forth in the November 30, 2021

agreement with the title, “Sponsorship Agreement” Specifically, in conformity with Section 12(g)

of said agreement, titled, “Notices,” Jesse Iwuji Motorsports, LLC (“JIM”) is providing you with 

notice, served upon the Company (as defined in the agreement), by email.

It is JIM’s intention to cause a termination of the agreement under Section 7(b), titled, 

“Termination.” The Company is in breach of a material provision of the Agreement. Specifically, 

the Company has failed to make payments to JIM in the amount of $187,500.00 on October 1, 

2022 and another $187,000.00 on November 1, 2022.

Under Section 7(b) of the agreement, JIM is providing the Company with thirty (30) days after 

receipt of this notice to remedy the issues as set forth above. After thirty (30) days, if the actions 

are not remedied and the breach is not cured, then JIM will consider the agreement to be effectively 

terminated; however, as stated in Section 7(c) of the agreement, Company shall remain responsible 

for paying JIM the entirety of the compensation set forth in the SOW.

Providing this notice shall not serve as a waiver of any claims that JIM may possess concerning 

Equity Prime Mortgage, LLC and any of its employees and/or independent contractors, and JIM

expressly reserves all rights.

Sincerely,

____________________

On behalf of JIM

Case 0:22-cv-62268-BB Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2022 Page 1 of 1
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5418

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

431 North George Street in Millersville, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Robert

S. Walker Post Office’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 6, 2000

Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. GEKAS, Mr. GOODLING, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. GREENWOOD,

Mr. BORSKI, Mr. SHERWOOD, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. ENGLISH,

Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. KLINK, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. WELDON

of Pennsylvania, Mr. HOEFFEL, and Mr. MASCARA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 431 North George Street in Millersville, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Robert S. Walker Post Office’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ROBERT S. WALKER POST OFFICE.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

5 Postal Service located at 431 North George Street in

6 Millersville, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated

7 as the ‘‘Robert S. Walker Post Office’’.
2

•HR 5418 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Robert S. Walker Post

5 Office.

Æ