alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Great Jones St. Realty Corp., Petitioner-Landlord-Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>Nittaya Chimsanthia, Respondent-Tenant-Respondent, -and- "John Doe", "Jane Doe," Respondents-Undertenants.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Landlord appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Clifton A. Nembhard, J.), entered July 23, 2019, which granted respondent Nittaya Chimsanthia's motion to dismiss the petition and denied, as moot, landlord's cross-motion for summary judgment in a licensee holdover summary proceeding.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Clifton A. Nembhard, J.), entered July 23, 2019, reversed, with $10 costs, respondent Chimsanthia's motion denied, petition reinstated, and the matter remanded to Civil Court for a determination of petitioner's cross motion on the merits.</p><p>Respondent's motion to dismiss the holdover petition should have been denied. In evaluating the facial sufficiency of a predicate notice in a summary eviction proceeding, the appropriate test is one of reasonableness in view of attendant circumstances (<i>see Hughes v Lenox Hill Hosp., </i>226 AD2d 4, 18 [1996]<i>, lv denied </i>90 NY2d 829 [1997]). Measured against the test of reasonableness, the notice to quit used here was facially sufficient, as it fairly stated the nature of petitioner's claim and the facts necessary to establish the existence of grounds for eviction. The misstatement in the notice concerning petitioner's name — "Great Jones Street Realty Corp.," rather than "Great Jones St. Realty Corp." — "could not have materially misled or confused the [respondent] or hindered the preparation of h[er] defense" (<i>Oxford Towers Co., LLC v Leites</i>, 41 AD3d 144, 145 [2007];<i> see Kips Bay Joint Venture Assoc. v Pashazadeh</i>, 2001 NY Slip Op 40302[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2001]; <i>see also</i> CPLR 2001).</p><p>In light of this determination, the denial as moot of petitioner's motion for summary <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>judgment must be reversed and the motion remanded for a determination on the merits.</p><p>All concur.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br><br>Clerk of the Court<br>Decision Date: May 13, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
   
    
    Failure to recognize stock option granting practices as a significant risk and to ensure that all individuals
involved in the process understood their appropriate roles and responsibilities and the consequences of their
actions;
    
    Lack of communication between individuals involved in the compensation approval process and personnel
responsible for the accounting treatment of equity-based awards;
    
    Lack of accounting expertise and knowledge related to accounting for certain equity-based awards;
    
    Inadequate policies and procedures regarding maintenance of records supporting the granting activities, grant
date, and authorization of equity-based transactions;
    
    Inadequate policies and procedures regarding preparation and retention of documentation of stock option
granting procedures and practices; and
    
    Inadequate supervision and training for personnel involved in the stock option granting process;
   /s/ KPMG LLP
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4811]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Project No. 11077-014]


Alaska Power and Telephone Company; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

Februry 21, 1997.
    An environmental assessment (EA) is available for public review. 
The EA is for an application to amend the Goat Lake Hydroelectric 
Project. The application is to modify the project by extending the 
access road to the bottom of the Skagway River Valley, relocating the 
powerhouse to the west side of the river, extending the transmission 
line, realigning the penstock route, and deleting the 125-foot-long 
spillway and burying the siphon. The EA finds that approval of the 
application would not constitute a major federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment. The Goat Lake Project 
is located on Pitchfork Falls, near the town of Skagway, Alaska.
    The EA was written by staff in the Office of Hydropower Licensing, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Copies of the EA can be viewed in 
the Public Reference Branch, Room 1C-1, of the Commission's offices at 
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
    For further information, please contact the project manager, Ms. 
Rebecca Martin, at (202) 219-2650.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-4811 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 10.3

Promissory Note

On this date of August 2, 2009, in return for valuable consideration received, the
undersigned borrower promises to pay to Seatac Digital Resources, Inc., the Lender, the sum of One-Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), together with interest thereon at the rate of five percent (5%) percent per annum.

Payable On Demand: The entire unpaid principal and accrued interest thereon, if any, shall become immediately due and payable on demand by the
holder of this Note.

Default - In the event of default, the borrower agrees to pay all costs and expenses incurred by the Lender, including all
reasonable attorney fees (including both hourly and contingent attorney fees as permitted by law) for the collection of this Note upon default, and including reasonable collection charges (including, where consistent with industry practices, a
collection charge set as a percentage of the outstanding balance of this Note) should collection be referred to a collection agency.

Acceleration of
Debt - In the event that the borrower fails to make any payment due under the terms of this Note, or breach any condition relating to any security, security agreement, note, mortgage or lien granted as collateral security for this Note, seeks
relief under the Bankruptcy Code, or suffers an involuntary petition in bankruptcy or receivership not vacated within thirty (30) days, the entire balance of this Note and any interest accrued thereon shall be immediately due and payable to the
holder of this Note.

Modification - No modification or waiver of any of the terms of this Agreement shall be allowed unless by written agreement
signed by both parties. No waiver of any breach or default hereunder shall be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach or default of the same or similar nature.

Transfer of the Note - The borrowers hereby waive any notice of the transfer of this Note by the Lender or by any subsequent holder of this Note, agree to remain bound by the terms of this Note subsequent to any transfer, and agree
that the terms of this Note may be fully enforced by any subsequent holder of this Note.

Severability of Provisions - In the event that any
portion of this Note is deemed unenforceable, all other provisions of this Note shall remain in full force and effect.

Choice of Law - All terms
and conditions of this Note shall be interpreted under the laws of The State of California.

Dated: August 2, 2009



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Donald R. Mastropietro                      
|Americas Minority Health Network, Inc. Borrower
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40297 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
LORENZO GARCIA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 1074

- 3

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lorenzo Garcia appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty

- plea conviction of conspiring to harbor and transport illegal alien s , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B). Garcia argues that the district court err ed
in calculating his offense level under U.S. S.G. § § 2X1.1 and 2L1.1 by holding him accountable under relevant conduct for harbor ing and transpor ting two aliens a pproximately three months prior to hi s offense of conviction. He

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 29, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40297 Document: 00512883551 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2014No. 14

- 40297

asserts that the incident , which involved different co

- conspirators, was insufficiently similar to the offense of conviction to constitute relevant conduct. Because Garcia did not raise this argument in the district court, we will review the district court’s sentencing decision for plain error only. Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). In determining Garcia’s sentence, the district court was allowed to consider , as relevant conduct, “all acts and omissions . . . that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of convicti on.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). The district court found that both Garcia’s offense of conviction and the prior transporting offense involved scheme s to forcibly detain aliens who had illegally entered the United States, extort money from those aliens and t heir families to pay for transportation, and subsequently abandon those aliens on the side of the road in Brooks County, Texas

. Those f

indings warrant ed a conclusion that the two episodes shared a common purpose and modus operandi and were part of a commo n scheme or plan. See United States v. Williams , 610 F.3d 271, 293

- 94 (5th Cir. 2010). M oreover, t he distinct similarities between the two episodes , which occurred within months of one another, warrant ed a conclusion that they were part of the same course of conduct. See United States v. Rhine , 583 F.3d 878, 888 (5th Cir. 2009). Garcia has not shown that the district court committed error, much less plain error, by concluding that his prior alien transporting episode w as conduct relevant t o his offense of conviction

. See Puckett, 129 S. Ct. at 1429

. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-40297 Document: 00512883551 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2014
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JUNE 1, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 03-13876

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-00588-CR-J-NE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

JERRY WAYNE WREN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

 (June 1, 2005)

ON REMAND FROM THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before ANDERSON, HULL and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
2

This appeal of Jerry Wayne Wren regarding the propriety of his conviction

and sentence for attempted possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute is

on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States for further consideration

in the light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. —, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). See

Wren v. United States, — U.S. —, 125 S. Ct. 1868 (2005). We previously

affirmed Wren’s conviction. United States v. Wren, No. 03-13876 (Dec. 16,

2004). After reconsideration, we affirm Wren’s sentence and reinstate our

previous opinion.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Booker does not change our resolution

of this appeal. In Wren’s initial brief to this Court, Wren did not make any

argument about the Apprendi/Blakely line of cases. Instead, Wren first presented

an argument regarding the Sentencing Guidelines in his petition for writ of

certiorari. Nothing in Booker or the remand order of the Supreme Court “requires

or suggests that we are obligated to consider an issue not raised in any of the briefs

that appellant has filed with us ... [or] treat the case as though the [Booker] issue

had been timely raised in this Court.” United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261,

1262 (11th Cir. 2005). We therefore, “apply our well-established rule that issues

and contentions not timely raised in the briefs are deemed abandoned,” id. at 1262-

63, and conclude that Ware abandoned any arguments he may have under Booker.
3

After reconsideration, we again affirm and reinstate our previous opinion.

OPINION REINSTATED; AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7446-7447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3979]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. RP96-16-003 and RP93-36-017]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

February 12, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 7, 1997, Natural Gas Pipeline Company 
of America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, certain tariff sheets to be 
effective February 1, 1997.
    Natural stated that the purpose of the filing is to comply with the 
Commission's letter order issued January 29, 1997 in Docket Nos. RP96-
16-002 and RP93-36-016 (Letter Order), which approved Natural's 
``Stipulation and Agreement'' filed in these same dockets on September 
30, 1996 (Settlement). Natural stated that the tariff sheets submitted 
reflect the revisions necessary to implement the provisions of the 
Settlement.
    Natural requested waiver of the Commission's Regulations to the 
extent necessary to permit the tariff sheets submitted to become 
effective February 1, 1997, as requiring by the Settlement and pursuant 
to the Letter Order.
    Natural stated the copies of the filing are being mailed to all 
parties set out on the official service list in Docket No. RP96-16-002.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with the Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public

[[Page 7447]]

inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3979 Filed 2-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6617 01-M
259 La. 795

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Wade DRIGGERS v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51772.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 13, 1971.

In re: Wade Driggers, applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The allegations raised in the lower court and presented to this court are without merit. The remaining allegations made for the first time in this court are not considered.
#### Eddie SCHWEIKERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-39.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Bobby Lee DANIELS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Adult Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-827.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 12, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph TONEY.

No. 61764.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 10, 1978.

In re: Joseph Toney applying for remedial writs and stay order. Orleans Parish.

Writ denied. Adequate Remedy by review in the event of conviction.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, T. M. Whichard, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2003 of BJ Services Company; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation ; and 

 

c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information ; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: December 17, 2003 

 

BY
 
/s/    T. M.WHICHARD        
  
**T. M. Whichard**

**Chief Financial Officer**
EXHIBIT 23.1
 
 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  
 Artesian Resources Corporation
 Newark, Delaware
  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-88531 and 333-136184) and Form S-8 (No. 333-05255, 333-31209, 333-78043 and 333-126910) of Artesian Resources Corporation of our reports dated March 15, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements, and the effectiveness of Artesian Resources Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting, which appear in this Form 10-K.
 /s/BDO USA, LLP
 Bethesda, Maryland
 March 15, 2011
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7339 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7339

  To direct the Director of the National Institute of Technologies to 
      undertake certain activities with respect to the artificial 
            intelligence workforce, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 25, 2020

  Mr. Cohen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Director of the National Institute of Technologies to 
      undertake certain activities with respect to the artificial 
            intelligence workforce, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``AI Careers Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE INITIATIVE.

    The Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
in consultation with the National Science Foundation, other relevant 
Federal agencies, academia, Federal laboratories, industry, and 
nonprofit organizations, shall--
            (1) develop taxonomies and lexica to describe skills, jobs, 
        and workforce requirements related to artificial intelligence 
        for the purpose of guiding career development, education, and 
        training activities in industry, academia, nonprofit 
        organizations, and the Federal Government;
            (2) identify gaps in the artificial intelligence workforce, 
        including in the public and private sectors; and
            (3) create criteria and measurements for credentials in 
        careers related to artificial intelligence.
                                 <all>
```
#### Willie JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1046.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 5, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The State, ex rel. The Standard Oil Co., *v.*Harris, Building Inspector.

*Mandamus*— Writ *not to issue, when*— Issues *pending in injunction proceeding.*

(No. 18231

Decided February 12, 1924.)

In Mandamus.

*Messrs. Niman, Grossman, Buss & Holliday,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Gillmer, Gillmer, Stephens & Patchin,*for defendant.

By the Court.

This is an original action in mandamus, brought by the relator against C. K. Harris, as building inspector of the city of Warren, Ohio. The relator prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the building inspector to issue a permit for the construction of a service station to be erected by the relator. It appears from the pleadings that, at the time this suit was instituted, there was already pending in the common pleas court of Trumbull county, Ohio, an action brought by the city of Warren against the relator, asking for an injunction to restrain the relator from proceeding with the building of said service or filling station, in which action a temporary injunction, restraining the relator from proceeding with the construction thereof, was issued by the court and is now in full force and effect. It is also admitted that in the action pending in the common pleas court this relator has filed its answer.

*393It is the opinion of this court that the questions here presented by mandamus can be fully tried and determined in the cause pending in the Trumbull county common pleas court, wherein a temporary injunction is now in force, and that this writ should not be issued, because the relator has a plain and adequate remedy, which may be obtained in that action. The writ is therefore denied.

*Writ denied.*

Wanamaker, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Aleen, JJ., concur.
#### David L. CALHOUN, Appellant, v. ORANGE COUNTY, Florida, a political subdivision, Appellee.

No. 2441.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 3, 1970.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1970.

William Murrell, Jr., Orlando, for appellant.

John H. Ward, of Ward, Bradford & Oswald, Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have thoroughly examined the briefs and record on appeal and conclude that *659the appellant has failed to demonstrate error. The judgment appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and McCAIN and REED, J J., concur.