alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Ann Lipes, Appellant, v State of New York, Division of Housing and Community Renewal, Office of Rent Administration, Respondent.

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Commissioner of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, dated May 5, 1989, which dismissed the petition for administrative review of a finding of general rent overcharge as untimely, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.), dated January 23, 1990, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner former landlord sought administrative review of an order of the District Rent Administrator of the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter the DHCR), issued on October 14, 1986, directing her to make refunds of excessive rent previously collected. The petitioner sought to have the current owner file a petition for administrative review (hereinafter PAR) and, when he failed to do so, she hand-delivered her PAR to the DHCR on November 19, 1986, which was 36 days after the issuance of *572the order sought to be reviewed. By order issued May 5, 1989, the DHCR dismissed the PAR upon a finding that it was not filed within the 35-day period mandated by the DHCR regulations. The petitioner subsequently commenced this proceeding to review the May 5, 1989 order, and, by judgment dated January 23, 1990, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, concluding that the DHCR’s interpretation of its own regulations was neither arbitrary nor capricious. We agree.

The controlling regulation, 9 NYCRR 2529.2, provides that a PAR regarding an order of a rent administrator must be filed in person or by mail with the DHCR within 35 days after the date such order is issued. The DHCR’s interpretation of the regulations it administers, if not unreasonable or irrational, is entitled to deference *(see, Matter of Versailles Realty Co. v New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal,*76 NY2d 325; *Matter of Salvati v Ermicke,*72 NY2d 784, 791). The DHCR’s determination that the 35-day period begins upon the date of the issuance of the order is clear and not irrational and the petitioner’s untimely PAR was properly rejected. Balletta, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 23.3

CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report included in this Form 10-K, into Tom
Brown, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 Nos. 33-42991, 33-60191, 33-60842, 333-13157,
333-30069, 333-42011, 333-56577, 333-69353, 333-89031, 333-89033, 333-31426, 333-51320,
333-57814 and 333-74268.

| |  | RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
| |  | -------------------

March 18,
2003



QuickLinks
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELMER ALEXANDER BONILLAMENDEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-74293

Agency No. A094-787-692

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2015**

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Elmer Alexander Bonilla-Mendez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 15 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-74293

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 

1252. We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Bonilla-Mendez does not challenge the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. 

See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not 

supported by argument are deemed waived). 

In denying Bonilla-Mendez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, 

the agency found he failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future 

persecution on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their 

decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in 

Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v. 

Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 

(9th Cir. 2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 

(BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we 

remand Bonilla-Mendez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine 

the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 

(2002) (per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach Bonilla-Mendez’s 

remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of his asylum and withholding of 

removal claims.
3 08-74293

The parties shall bear their own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; 

REMANDED.
Exhibit 3(vii)

             CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                            (After Issuance of Stock)
                         MARKETING SERVICES GROUP, INC.


        We the undersigned,  J. Jeremy Barbera, Chairman and President, and Alan
I. Annex,  Secretary,  of MARKETING  SERVICES GROUP,  INC., a Nevada corporation
(the "Company"), do hereby certify that, as of the date hereof:

        The Board of Directors of said Company, at a meeting duly convened, held
on the 15th day of December, 1997, adopted a resolution to amend the articles as
follows:

        The first  paragraph of Article VI is amended to read:

     "The  total  number of shares of all  classes of  capital  stock  which the
     Company shall have the authority to issue is 75,150,000  shares which shall
     be divided  into two classes as follows:  (i) 150,000  shares of  preferred
     stock, par value $.01 per share  ("Preferred  Stock"),  and (ii) 75,000,000
     shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share ("Common Stock")."

      That at an Annual  Meeting  of  Stockholders  held on April 3,  1998,  the
stockholders  voted  either in person or by  proxy,  to adopt the  amendment  of
Article VI as set forth and recommended by the Board of Directors. The amendment
change to Article  VI,  pertaining  to the  increase  in the number of shares of
Common Stock was adopted by 15,211,407  shares voting in favor,  580,292 opposed
and 43,017  abstentions.  The remainder were non-votes.  The amendment change to
Article VI,  pertaining  to the  increase  in the number of shares of  Preferred
Stock was adopted by  10,452,521  shares  voting in favor,  607,693  opposed and
4,774,017 abstentions. The remainder were non-votes. The number of common shares
of the Corporation  outstanding and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting on an
amendment  to the  Articles  of  Incorporation  was  17,534,674.  The  preferred
shareholder  voted 50,000 shares in favor of the amendment change to Article VI.
The number of preferred  shares of the  Corporation  outstanding and entitled to
vote at the Annual Meeting on an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation  was
50,000.

        IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned  have executed this Certificate of
Amendment as of April 3, 1998.

                               By:  /s/ J. Jeremy Barbera
                                     J. Jeremy Barbera
                                     Chairman and President

                               By:  /s/ Alan I. Annex
                                     Alan I. Annex
                                     Secretary
State of New York    } ss.
County of  New York  }
On April 3, 1998,  personally  appeared  before me, a Notary  Public,  J. Jeremy
Barbera,  Chairman  and  President  and Alan I. Annex,  Secretary  of  Marketing
Services Group Inc., who acknowledged that they executed the above instrument.

                                    /s/ Robert S. Matlin
                                     Signature of Notary
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2930

___________________________

Transito Omar Castillo-Hernandez

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: April 9, 2015

Filed: April 14, 2015 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Transito Omar Castillo-Hernandez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration

judge’s decision to deny his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. 

After careful consideration of the issues before us, see De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder,

713 F.3d 375, 379 (8th Cir. 2013), we deny the petition, because we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the finding that Castillo failed to establish past

persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution, see Ortiz-Puentes v. Holder,

662 F.3d 481, 483-84 (8th Cir. 2011). The petition for review is denied. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

4/16/2015 COA No. 01-12-01124-CR

CARMON, CASEY DEMON Tr. Ct. No. 1243459 PD-0118-15

Pursuant to Rule 69.4(a) T.R.A.P., the record is returned to the court of appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

1ST COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

301 FANNIN

HOUSTON, TX 77002-7006

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

FILE COPY
|Exhibit 23.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Consent of Independent Public Accountants                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
|We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form S-8 Registration Statements, File Numbers, 033-65256, 033-65254, 033-65890, 333-07735, 333-46791, 333-46795, 333-46797, and 333-46809 of our report dated July 30, 2001 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Butler National Corporation included in the Annual Report Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2002.
|WEAVER & MARTIN, LLC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
|Kansas City, Missouri,
July 24, 2002
Gibbons 

J. 

further conclude that such dismissal will not violate the bankruptcy stay.' 

See Independent Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan American World 

Airways, Inc., 966 F.2d 457, 459 (9 111 Cir. 1992) (holding that the automatic 

stay does not preclude dismissal of an appeal so long as dismissal is 

‘`consistent with the purpose of the statute [11 U.S.C. §362(a)"]; Dean v. 

Trans World Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 754, 755 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that a 

post-bankruptcy petition dismissal will violate the automatic stay "where 

the decision to dismiss first requires the court to consider other issues 

presented by or related to the underlying case"). 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. This dismissal is without 

prejudice to appellant's right to move for reinstatement of this appeal 

within 60 days of either the lifting of the bankruptcy stay or final 

resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings, if appellant deems such a 

motion appropriate at that time. 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Hon. Scott N. Freeman, District Judge 

1The automatic stay provides a debtor "with protection against 

hungry creditors" and gives it a "breathing spell from its creditors" by 

stopping all collection efforts. Dean v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 

754, 755 (91h Cir. 1995). Further, it assures creditors "that the debtor's 

other creditors are not racing to various courthouses to pursue 

independent remedies to drain the debtor's assets." Id. At 755-6. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A (ecia 
Wm. Patterson Cashill, Settlement Judge 

Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg 

Hutchison & Steffen, LLC 

Bradley Drendel & Jeanney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

10) 1941A 0
[On Letterhead of Partnering Organization]

PARTNER ORGANIZATION LETTER

[Name of Authorized Organizational Representative /Applicant]

[Applicant Organization]

[City, State]

Dear [Project Director]:

[Optional short introduction describing partnering organization’s mission and how its applicable to the proposed project.]

We commit to participating in and supporting the [Current Year] [Project Title], for the period of [include dates of commitment within proposed project period] in the following way(s):

· Person 1 will ... (describe role: what the person will do, time commitment)

· Person 2 will ... (describe role: what the person will do, time commitment)

The individuals and our organization agree to abide by the management plan contained in the application.

Sincerely,

[Signature of Partnering Organization’s Authorized Representative (AR)]

Printed Name of AR

AR’s Title (e.g., Executive Director)

Address and telephone number if that information is not already on the letterhead
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Earl B. Rogers, Appellant, v Evans Plumbing & Heating, Respondent. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

—Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed April 17, 1990, which, *inter alia,*ruled that claimant’s application was untimely.

By application filed August 31, 1988, claimant sought review of two decisions of a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge finding that he was not entitled to compensation benefits from February 7, 1983 through September 23, 1985. Inasmuch as this application was made more than 30 days after notice of the two decisions, which were filed August 5, 1985 and October 1, 1985, the Workers’ Compensation Board correctly held that claimant’s application was untimely *(see,*Workers’ Compensation Law § 23; 12 NYCRR 300.13 [a]; *see also, Matter of Eberle v New York State Dept. of Mental Hygiene,*60 AD2d 722). Nor was it arbitrary and capricious for the Board to decline to entertain the application *(see, Matter of Eberle v New York State Dept. of Mental Hygiene, supra).*

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
BRESLER & REINER, INC.

Section 906 Certification



Exhibit 32



Certificate of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers of Bresler & Reiner, Inc.



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Bresler & Reiner, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned officers of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Sidney M. BreslerSIDNEY M. BRESLER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


/s/ DARRYL M. EDELSTEINDARRYL M. EDELSTEIN CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




Dated: March 30, 2004



4
Exhibit 10.20

                                                                   April 4, 2002

Mr. Arthur E. Reiner
Chairman of the Board
Finlay Enterprises, Inc.
529 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York  10017

     Re:  Sale of Shares of Common Stock of Finlay Enterprises, Inc.

Dear Mr. Reiner:

     This letter confirms the agreement of Equity-Linked Investors-II ("ELI-II")
to sell to Finlay  Enterprises,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  an aggregate of 526,562
shares (the "Shares") of the common stock of the Company, on the terms set forth
herein.

     1.  Simultaneously  with the execution and delivery of this Agreement,  (i)
the Company shall  purchase  from ELI-II,  and ELI-II shall sell to the Company,
the Shares at a price of $l1.00 per share,  or an aggregate  price of $5,792,182
(the  "Purchase  Price"),  and (ii) the  Company  shall  deliver  to ELI-II  the
Purchase Price by wire transfer to an account  designated by ELI-II,  and ELI-II
will  deliver to the Company  one or more stock  certificates  representing  the
Shares, with stock powers duly endorsed in blank attached thereto.

     2. ELI-II  represents  and  warrants to the Company that (a) the Shares are
owned by ELI-II and  represent  all of the capital stock of the Company owned by
ELI-II or any affiliate  thereof or of Rohit M. Desai,  (b) the Shares are being
sold  free  and  clear  of  all  encumbrances,  liens  of  any  kind  whatsoever
("Encumbrances"),  other than the  restrictions  imposed  by  Federal  and state
securities  law,  (c)  ELI-II is  authorized  to enter into this  Agreement  and
consummate  the  transactions  contemplated  hereby and (d) it is fully familiar
with the financial condition of the Company and has had an adequate  opportunity
to ask  and  have  answered  questions  regarding  the  financial  and  business
condition of the Company.

     3. The Company  represents that all necessary  corporate  actions have been
taken and  approved,  including  by the board of  directors,  to  authorize  the
transaction contemplated herein.

<PAGE>

     4. This  Agreement  shall be  governed by the laws of the State of New York
and may not be modified except by a writing executed by the parties hereto.

     Please  confirm your  agreement to the  foregoing by executing the enclosed
copy of this letter where indicated.

                               Very truly yours,


                               EQUITY-LINKED INVESTORS-II

                               By Rohit M Desai Associates II as General Partner


                               By: /s/ Rohit M. Desai
                                   ----------------------------
                                   Name: Rohit M. Desai
                                   Title: President


AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

FINLAY ENTERPRISES, INC.


By: /s/ Bruce Zurlnick
    ----------------------------------------------
    Name:  Bruce Zurlnick
    Title: Sr. Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
        Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.1
 BOWNE & CO., INC.
1999 Incentive Compensation Plan
As Amended and Restated December 31, 2008
  Purpose.
 Definitions.




---



##### 



Administration.
 Authority of the Committee.
 2




---



##### 



Manner of Exercise of Committee Authority.
 Limitation of Liability.
 Stock Subject to Plan.
 Overall Number of Shares Available for Delivery.
 3




---



##### 



Share Counting Rules.
 Eligibility; Per-Person Award Limitations.
 Specific Terms of Awards.
 General.
 4




---



##### 



Options.
 Exercise Price.
 Option Term; Time and Method of Exercise.
 ISOs.
 Stock Appreciation Rights.
 Right to Payment.
 Other Terms.
 Restricted Stock.
 Grant and Restrictions.
 5




---



##### 



Forfeiture.
 Certificates for Stock.
 Dividends and Splits.
 Deferred Stock and Restricted Stock Units
 Award and Restrictions.
 Forfeiture.
 6




---



##### 



Dividend Equivalents.
 Bonus Stock and Awards in Lieu of Obligations.
 Dividend Equivalents.
 Other Stock-Based and Cash Awards.
 Certain Provisions Applicable to Awards.
 Stand-Alone, Additional, Tandem, and Substitute Awards.
 7




---



##### 



Term of Awards.
 Form and Timing of Payment under Awards.
 Exemptions from Section 16(b) Liability.
 Performance and Annual Incentive Awards.
 Performance Conditions.
 Performance Awards Granted to Designated Covered Employees.
 Performance Goals Generally.
 8




---



##### 



Business Criteria.
 Performance Period; Timing for Establishing Performance Goals.
 Performance Award Pool.
 Settlement of Performance Awards; Other Terms.
 9




---



##### 



Annual Incentive Awards Granted to Designated Covered Employees.
 Grant of Annual Incentive Awards.
 Payout of Annual Incentive Awards.
 Written Determinations.
 10




---



##### 



Change in Control.
 Effect of Change in Control.
    Definition of Change in Control.
      Additional Award Forfeiture Provisions
 Forfeiture of Options and Other Awards and Gains Realized Upon Prior Option Exercises.
 11




---



##### 



Events Triggering Forfeiture.
    12




---



##### 



Agreement Does Not Prohibit Competition or Other Participant Activities.
 Right of Setoff.
 Committee Discretion.
 General Provisions.
 Compliance with Legal and Other Requirements.
 Limits on Transferability; Beneficiaries.
 13




---



##### 



Adjustments.
 Taxes.
 14




---



##### 



Changes to the Plan.
 Limitation on Rights Conferred under Plan.
 Unfunded Status of Awards; Creation of Trusts.
 Nonexclusivity of the Plan.
 Payments in the Event of Forfeitures; Fractional Shares.
 15




---



##### 



Compliance with Code Section 162(m) .
 Governing Law.
 Awards under Preexisting Plans.
 Awards to Participants Outside the United States.
 Plan Effective Date and Stockholder Approval.
 16
#### In the Matter of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, on Behalf of Ralph L., Respondent, v Roy C., Appellant.

—In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the father appeals from so much of a dispositional order of the Family Court, Queens County (DePhillips, J.), dated April 5, 1989, as, upon a fact finding order dated January 5, 1989, made upon his admission, found that the subject children were neglected.

Ordered that the dispositional order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the father’s contention, his admission was factually sufficient to establish that he inflicted excessive corporal punishment upon his five-year-old stepson, and, thus, the finding of neglect within the meaning of Family Court Act § 1012 (f) was supported by the evidence *(see, Matter of Debbie W., 81*AD2d 642; *Matter of Rodney C.,*91 Misc 2d 677; *cf., Matter of Coleen P.,*148 AD2d 782). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.