alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Kathleen Leonard, an Infant, by Her Mother and Natural Guardian, Elizabeth Leonard et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Todd B. Bishop, Respondent-Appellant, et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[633 NYS2d 79]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.), dated November 3, 1994, as granted the branch of the motion of the defendant Todd Bishop which was, in effect, to vacate a prior order of the same court dated August 8, 1994, entered upon his default, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court dated December 16,1994, as, upon granting the plaintiffs’ motion for reargument, adhered to its prior determination, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. The defendant Todd Bishop cross-appeals from so much of the order dated November 3, 1994, as directed a hearing to determine whether he had been properly served with process in the action.

Ordered that on the court’s own motion, Todd Bishop’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted *(see,*CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 3, 1994, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated December 16, 1994, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 3, 1994, is affirmed insofar as cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated December 16, 1994, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

*724We reject the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant Todd Bishop waived, or should be estopped from asserting, the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction based on improper service. The plaintiffs are not entitled to serve an amended complaint on Bishop and avoid the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction based on improper service merely because Bishop served a third-party complaint *(cf., Duffy v Horton Mem. Hosp.,*66 NY2d 473).

Finally, we reject Bishop’s contention on the cross appeal that the affidavit of service was improper on its face, and thus, the complaint should have been dismissed. The order dated November 3, 1994, which set the matter down for a hearing, is not appealable as of right *(see, Matter of Manufacturers Hanover Trust v Porcelli,*111 AD2d 175; *Palma v Palma,*101 AD2d 812). Nevertheless, leave to appeal is granted pursuant to CPLR 5701 (c). The Supreme Court correctly determined that an issue of fact has been raised with regard to service and correctly ordered a hearing to determine the validity of the service of process. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.2


 


 


 


RESIGNATION


FROM
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ALL OFFICER POSITIONS
OF ALTEROLA BIOTECH, INC.


 









 


 


I,
Michael Frederick Freitag, hereby resign
from all officer and director
positions that I
hold with Alterola
B iotech, Inc.,
effective as of the close
of business on the
date hereof.


 


Furthermore
I confirm that I am
owed no money or other
consideration in lieu
of salary or directors fees or for any other reason, I
release the company from any
claims of whatsoever
nature and confirm I
am not aware of any
other undisclosed liabilities.


 


 


/s/ Michael Frederick Freitag                


Michael
Frederick Freitag


Dated: March
26th, 2018
No. 63859.

protest 59/16139 (New York).

#### Mason International *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
EXHIBIT 99.4


ANDREW G. GOULD
164 Lyons Road
Scarsdale, New York  10583
Tel 914-723-2560 * email andrew@gouldco.com



By Fax and Certified Mail


February 14, 2003


Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc.
18 East 50th St., 10th Floor
New York, NY  10022
Fax 212-758-8844

Gentlemen:

Based on the conference-call update received by the Bion Board of Directors
from the Chief Executive Officer earlier this week, in which we were informed
of the company's emerging business challenges and continuing efforts by the
company's management to raise capital, it has become clear to me that Bion is
going to need a Board whose members can be directly engaged in the company's
capital-formation and other affairs.  Moreover, it is clear that the frequency
and intensity of this engagement is likely to increase beyond the sort of
support that can be provided by an outside Board member who has other full-
time commitments.  In light of this update, I have taken stock of my current
business commitments and have concluded that it is impractical for me to
continue as an outside member of Bion's Board of Directors.

Accordingly, and effective immediately, I resign as a member of the Board of
Directors of Bion Environmental Technologies, Inc.  I appreciate the
opportunity to have served on the Board, and I wish you well with Bion's
activities.

Sincerely,


/s/ Andrew G. Gould

Andrew G. Gould
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-29-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,329
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,927<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    114,981
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               162,830
<PP&E>                                          73,333
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 253,460
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,304
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           174
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   253,460
<SALES>                                        343,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               343,324
<CGS>                                          262,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  262,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               100,228
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,104
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,009)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,657)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,666)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.36)
<FN>
<F1>Trade accounts receivable net allowance for doubtful accounts of $475.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
From: rpyank@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:34:22 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Yank

South Milwaukee, WI 53172
From: newbyd@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:12:34 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Daniel Newby

Mc Leansville, NC 27301
From: lucht2bj@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 8:25:37 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

James Lucht

Neenah, WI 54956
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 12:35 PM

To: 'kunkle@khlaw.com'; 'ken.lewis@chevron.com'

Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha (FAA); Cooper, Thuy (FAA)

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Chevron USA, Inc.

January 16, 2015 

Mr. Kenneth Lewis 

Chevron USA, Inc. 

9525 Camino Media 

Bakerfield, CA 9331 

Mr. Greg Kunkle 

Keller and Heckman, LLP 

1001 G Street NW, Suite 500 West 

Washington, DC 20001 

Dear Messrs. Lewis and Kunkle: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0802). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Provide information regarding the radio frequency spectrum(s). This information can be located in the 

aircraft manual(s). 

 Your petition references a pre-flight inspection and/or checklist. Describe the process used to determine 

if the UAS is airworthy and in safe condition for operation in the NAS. 

 Your petition references the materials listed below, however the materials were not submitted for the 

record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials: 

o Skycatch Flight Manual 

o Safety Check list 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to nia.daniels@faa.gov. If 

you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information described above by January 

30, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-7626. 

Sincerely, 
2

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
#### Edith M. ORTEGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Being sued as Larry G. Massanari*, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 99-35885.

D.C. No. CV 98-06247-MRH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 9, 2001.

Decided July 3, 2001.

Before GOODWIN, GREENBERG,** and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Larry G. Massanari, is substituted for his predecessor, as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The Honorable Morton I. Greenberg, United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Edith M. Ortega (“Ortega”) appeals a judgment affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying Ortega’s claim for Supplemental Social Security Income disability benefits. She argues that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) erred in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Aho, *608the examining psychologist, in favor of Dr. Warner, the nonexamining medical expert. She also contends that the ALJ erred in rejecting the opinion of Dr. Floyd, Ortega’s treating physician. We agree.

Even though the opinions of Dr. Floyd (treating doctor) and Dr. Aho (examining doctor) were contradicted by the opinion of the nonexamining doctor, the ALJ could not reject them unless he provided specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence. *Lester v. Chater,*81 F.3d 821, 830-31 (9th Cir.1995). The ALJ did not provide such reasons.

‘Where the Commissioner fails to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the opinion of a treating or examining physician, we credit that opinion ‘as a matter of law.’ ” *Lester,*81 F.3d at 834 (quoting *Hammock v. Bowen,*879 F.2d 498, 502 (9th Cir.1989)). When the ALJ presented the vocational expert with the hypothetical based on Dr. Aho’s evaluation of Ortega, the vocational expert found that there were no jobs for which Ortega would be suitable. Because the ALJ failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for rejecting the opinion of Dr. Aho and Dr. Floyd, there are no outstanding issues to resolve, and it is clear from the record that the ALJ would be required to find Ortega disabled if such evidence were properly credited, we remand for payment of benefits. *See Smolen v. Chater,*80 F.3d 1273, 1292 (9th Cir.1996).

REVERSED and REMANDED for payment of benefits.

***

 jjjjg disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Proposed Order to PERMIT Destruction of Evidence

CR05-173RSM

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

U.S. COURTHOUSE

7TH & STEWART

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 1 (206) 553-7970

Judge Martinez 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

 ) NO. CR05-173RSM

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) ORDER PERMITTING 

 ) DESTRUCTION OF DRUG 

 ) EVIDENCE

ROBERT KESLING, ) 

 ) 

Defendant. ) 

____________________________________)

ORDER

For the reasons set forth in the Government’s motion, it is HEREBY ORDERED that

certain drug evidence, described as approximately 149 kilograms of cocaine (seizure number

2005300400009601), and 488 pounds of marijuana (seizure numbers 2005300100009701

and 2005300100009901) may be destroyed by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement, consistent with their authority and administrative regulation, with the

understanding that samples of the drug which have been submitted to the DEA laboratory for

analysis shall be preserved in accordance with administrative regulation. 

DATED this 9th day of December, 2005

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyand mineral deposits of the Colville Indian Reservation, Washington**
 
Report | Plate: One
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:677
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000956409
 
July 18, 2018
Order entered August 2 1 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00925
- CV
THAD F. BAKER A/K/A FRED BAKER, ET AL, Appellant s V. W. R. EDWARDS, JR., Appellee On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas Co unty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 10
- 00003
- F



### O RDER On August 1, 2013, after a review of the clerk’s record revealed appellee

- debtor had filed a notice of bankruptcy, we informed the parties that the appeal would be abated pursuant to Texas Rule of Ap pellate Procedure 8.2 unless the parties filed a motion to reinstate showing the appeal is permitted by federal law or the bankruptcy court. See T EX
. R S
. A PP
. P. 8.2, 8.3. The parties complied , asserting that the automatic stay of judicial proceedings p rovided in section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code d oes not apply to this appeal because the case was initiated by appellee

- debtor , and no claims were brought against him

. See 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a) (West Supp. 2013) ; McMillan v. MBank Fort Worth, N.A ., 4 F.3d 362 , 366 (5 th Cir. 1993); In re McDaniel , 149 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2004, order)

.Because the automatic stay is only applicable to claims against the debtor, we GRANT

appellee’s August 5, 2013 motion regarding involuntary bankruptcy and appellant s’ August 6, 2013 motion to reinstate appeal suspended by bankruptcy. See Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Denton Cnty. Appraisal Dist ., 13 S.W.3d 828, 829 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied).
We ORDER appellants to file their brief on the merits no later t han September 23, 2013.

/Elizabeth Lang

- Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
EUGENE HEATLY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-1442

_____________________________/

Opinion filed August 3, 2016. 

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Mark J. Borello, Judge.

Eugene Heatly, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the financial statements included in the report.
  /s/ Robert C. Sepucha

Robert C. SepuchaChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
**KFS** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 3 - 0416 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SAMUEL WADE FRYDENLUND ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefore , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including January 21 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 15 2023

12/15/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0416