alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Hannah Levy, Respondent, v Bronx County Carting Company, Also Known as Bronx County Rubbish, et al., Appellants.

Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.), entered on April 18, 1990, which granted plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint to increase the *ad damnum*clause to include a claim for punitive damages, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion denied, without costs.

In this personal injury action, plaintiff’s automobile was allegedly involved in an accident with a truck driven by defendant’s employee.

On this motion, plaintiff alleges that defendant has been dishonest with respect to disclosure of who was driving the truck at the time of the accident, and whether another person was present in the truck.

These allegations are not sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. The wrongful conduct in the course of disclosure is not connected to the underlying tort, and therefore should not be subject to an award of damages. *(James v Powell,*19 NY2d 249.)

Departures from professional standards of this nature are more appropriately addressed by imposition of sanctions *(see, Ostano Commerzanstalt v Telewide Sys.,*794 F2d 763 [2d Cir 1986]). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
<PAGE>




                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-91578, 333-17355, 333-39523 and 333-59664 of Tower Automotive, Inc. and
Subsidiaries on Form S-8; No. 333-69844 on Form S-3; and No. 333-107232 on Form
S-4 of our reports dated March 4, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and Schedules I and II of Tower Automotive, Inc. and Subsidiaries as
of and for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Tower Automotive, Inc. and Subsidiaries for the year
ended December 31, 2003. Our audit report on the 2003 and 2002 consolidated
financial statements expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory
paragraphs relating to (i) the change in the Company's method of accounting for
certain variable interest entities and the change in the Company's method of
accounting for goodwill and (ii) the application of procedures relating to
certain other disclosures of financial statement amounts related to the 2001
consolidated financial statements that were audited by other auditors who have
ceased operations and for which we have expressed no opinion or other form of
assurance other than with respect to such disclosures.

Deloitte & Touche LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
March 5, 2004
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.2 MB)

Tags:Distribution, DLA Distribution, BG Dix, Defense Distribution Center, Susquehanna, New Cumberland, dla, Child Development Center , People and Culture, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
##### 



Exhibit 10.4
 Diamond Management & Technology Consultants, Inc.
875 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60611
312.255.5000
 
 NOTICE OF GRANT OF RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS  PARTNER
 
 «FIRST_NAME»
«COUNTRY»
    
    «LAST_NAME»
    
    EMPLOYEE ID:      «ID»
 
 Plan:
    
    «PLAN»Grant Number:
    
    «NUMBER»Date of Grant:
    
    «DATE»RSUS Granted:
    
    «SHARES»Fair Market Value on Date of Grant:
    
    «COST_BASIS»
 The shares will be issued as follows:
 RSUS
    
    Vest Date«SHARES1»
    
    «VEST1»«SHARES2»
    
    «VEST2»«SHARES3»
    
    «VEST3»«SHARES4»
    
    «VEST4»«SHARES5»
    
    «VEST5»«SHARES6»
    
    «VEST6»«SHARES7»
    
    «VEST7»«SHARES8»
    
    «VEST8»«SHARES9»
    
    «VEST9»«SHARES10»
    
    «VEST10»




---



##### 



Diamond Management & Technology Consultants, Inc.
875 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL
60611 312.255.5000
 
 NOTICE OF GRANT OF RESTRICTED STOCK UNITS  NON-PARTNER
 
 «First_Name»
    
    «LAST_NAME»
    
    EMPLOYEE ID:     «ID»«Middle_Name»«COUNTRY»
 
 Plan:
    
    «PLAN»Grant Number:
    
    «NUMBER»Date of Grant:
    
    «DATE»Restricted Stock Units Granted:
    
    «SHARES»Fair Market Value on Date of Grant:
    
    «Cost_Basis_»
 The Shares will be issued as follows:
 Shares
    
    Issue Date«SHARES1»
«SHARES2»
«SHARES3»
«SHARES4»
«SHARES5»
«SHARES6»
«Shares7»
«Shares8»
    
    «VEST1»
«VEST2»
«VEST3»
«VEST4»
«VEST5»
«VEST6»
«Vest7»
«Vest8»
  2




---



##### 



DIAMOND MANAGEMENT & TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS, INC.
 RESTRICTED
STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT
     1.Definitions.
            3




---



##### 



2.Grant
of Restricted Stock Units.
  3.Restrictions
on Transfer.
  4.Vesting
of Restricted Stock Units.
    5.Acceptance
of Grant.
  6.Modification
of Restricted Stock Units.
  7.Stockholder
Rights.
  4




---



##### 



8. Other Documents.
  9. Continued Employment.
  10. Personal Data.
   11. Notices.
  12. Severability.
  5




---



##### 



13. Agreed Forum.
  14. Arbitration.
    15. Equitable Relief.
  16. Applicable State Law.
  
 RECIPIENT:
    
    THE COMPANY:Diamond Management & Technology Consultants, Inc./s/ Adam J. Gutstein(Signature)
    
    Adam J. GutsteinChief Executive Officer(Print Name)
 6
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-720 

LT Case No. 2020-CF-002541-A 

_____________________________

JOSEPH KING, 

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. 

Mark Borello, Judge. 

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Michael Schaub, Assistant

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

April 9, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

WALLIS, BOATWRIGHT, and PRATT, JJ., concur. 
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOISES VELASQUEZ

- MEDINA,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 70553 Agency No. A088

- 892

- 353

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
S ubmitted May 21, 2019 ** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges

. Moises Velasquez

- Medina, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the B oard of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reopen. We have jurisdiction under U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of law.
Mohammed v. Gonzales , 400 F.3d 785, 791

- 92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the

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

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 70553

petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Velasquez

Medina’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel and new eligibility for asylum and related relief , where he filed the motion more than three

years after his final a dministrative order of removal, he did not show due diligence
for equitable tolling of the filing deadline , and he did not show that the motion was subject to any exceptions to the deadline. See 8 C.F .R. § 1003.2(c)(2)

- (3) (subject to exceptions, a motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the date
of the final administrative decision); Avagyan v. Holder , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud , or error, as long as the petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances)

. We reject Velasquez

- Medina ’s contention that the BIA failed to address his request for reopening based on new eligibility for asylum and related relief

. The
BIA addressed the timeliness of his motion and did not need to address changed country conditions because this exception was not raised in his brief to the BIA.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)

- (3); Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach)

. Because these determinations are dis positive , we do not reach Velasquez

-3 17

- 70553

Medina’s remaining contentions regarding compliance with the procedural requirements of Matter of Lozada , 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988) , and whether he was prejudiced by prior counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance

. S ee Simeonov , 371 F.3d at 538.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIE D.
June 23, 2015 

Ms. Nita D. Musick 

Designated Broker 

Musick Land Group 

323 West Main Street 

Grangeville, ID 83530 

Dear Ms. Musick: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your April 21, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Musick Land Group dba 

United Country-Musick & Sons Auction & Real Estate Services, LLC into the public docket 

(No. FAA-2015-1420), but we are unable to process your request any further. The 

information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 
2 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Aircraft and 

 Airport Rules Division

Enclosure
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                  S. 5

         To reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 22 (legislative day, January 3), 2013

  Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. 
  Gillibrand, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
     Schatz, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Brown, Mr. Tester, Mr. Coons, Mr. 
Whitehouse, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Begich, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Casey, 
 Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Levin, 
Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Heinrich) introduced the following bill; which 
     was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

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

SECTION 1. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

    It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should--
            (1) reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 
        U.S.C. 13925 et seq.) (referred to in this section as 
        ``VAWA''), a landmark bipartisan bill that has dramatically 
        improved the national response to domestic and sexual violence;
            (2) renew the commitment of the United States to providing 
        the resources necessary to combat all forms of domestic 
        violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking, 
        including important new initiatives to reduce homicides, 
        increase the focus on preventing and responding to sexual 
        assault, and make women on college campuses safer from domestic 
        and sexual violence;
            (3) build upon the success of VAWA in transforming the 
        criminal justice and community-based response to abuse by 
        bolstering and streamlining the programs, grants, and 
        coalitions created by VAWA and expanding the reach of VAWA to 
        meet the remaining unmet needs of victims;
            (4) continue to provide the training, tools, and resources 
        necessary for law enforcement officers and victim service 
        providers to hold the perpetrators of domestic and sexual 
        violence accountable and to keep victims safe; and
            (5) ensure that all victims of domestic and sexual 
        violence, including Native American women, gay and lesbian 
        victims, and battered immigrant women, receive the support and 
        protections provided by VAWA.
                                 <all>
```
#### Elizabeth Brocco, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Alfred Brocco, Deceased, Appellant, v West*475chester Radiological Associates, P. C., et al., Defendants, and Arthur DeAngelis, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered August 1, 1989, which denied her motion to "reargue and resubmit” a prior motion which resulted in an order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Arthur DeAngelis.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

Since the order from which the plaintiff appeals denies a motion for reargument *(see, Anchor Sav. Bank v Alpha Developers,*143 AD2d 711, 712-713; *Matter of Dowling v Bowen,*53 AD2d 862), the appeal must be dismissed. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument *(see, Fahey v County of Nassau,*111 AD2d 214). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
EX-10.21(ii)



 Exhibit 10.21(ii) 
  





 
 Re: Bridge Loan Agreement 

May 28, 2015 
 This Bridge Agreement (this
“Agreement”) is entered into effect on May 28, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Protagenic Therapeutics Inc, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Dr. Garo H. Armen (the
“Lender”). 
 WHEREAS, the Lender, pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, will lend the Company an aggregate amount of twenty
nine thousand five hundred Dollars (US$ 29,500) (the “Loan Amount”). The loan (the “Loan”) shall be convertible into securities of the Company on the terms and conditions set forth herein. This loan will bear interest rate of 10%
(ten percent) per annum. 
 Protagenic Therapeutics agrees to guarantee the payment of all principal and accrued interest in the form of shares of its
Common Stock, $0.001 par value (“Common Stock”.) at a purchase price of $1.25 per share (“the Shares”) upon competing its next fundraising round. 

The proceeds will be used to fund the research and development and some operational activities for Protagenic Therapeutics Inc. 

The Lender will lend the Company the Loan Amount in one installment upon signature of the agreement. 

This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, U.S.A., without regard to any choice of law principle
that would dictate the application of the law of another jurisdiction. The parties agree that any action, suit or other legal proceeding that is commenced to resolve any matter arising under or relating to any provision of this Agreement shall be
commenced only in a court of the State of New York (or, if appropriate, a federal court located within the State of New York), and each party consents to the jurisdiction of such court. 

This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which together shall be considered one and the same
agreement. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, duly authorized representatives of the parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. 

 

							
	 Dr. Garo H Armen
  

Print Name:

    Garo H. Armen
  

Signature:

    /s/ Garo H. Armen
	 		 		 	 PROTAGENIC THERAPEUTICS, INC.
 By: Dr.
Robert Ziroyan
  
 Print Name:

    Robert Ziroyan
  

Signature:

    /s/ Robert Ziroyan
  

Title: Chief Operating Officer and Interim President


 Protagenic Therapeutics Inc., 149 5th Avenue, Suite 500, New York, NY 10010 

Tel: 416-500-3305; Fax: 508.734.2177, www.protagenic.com
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-1018 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-SW-052-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

Yes Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Eurocopter ASB AS365-05.00.60, Revision 2, dated October 9, 2012. 

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.27 MB)

Tags:DLA Aviation, Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, RICHMOND, Brig. Gen. Allan Day, Strategic engagement, SENIOR LEADER CONFERENCE, Virginia

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery