alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13
- 15
- 00056
- C V
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

IN R E ANDREW VANBLARCUM AND JAMES VANBLARCUM

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza Per Curiam Order

Relator s , Andrew VanBlarcum and James VanBlarcum , f iled a petition for writ of
mandamus and motion for emergency stay in the above cause on February 4, 2015

. Through this original proceeding, relator s contend that the trial court erred in denying their plea in abatement based on dominant jurisdiction

. The Court, having exa mined and fully considered the motion for emergency stay , is of the opinion that said motion should be granted. The motion for em ergency stay is hereby GRANTED, and the trial court proceedings are ordered STAYED pending further order of this Court, or until the case is finally decided. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10(b)2

(“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”).
T he Court requests that the real party in interest , Nexus Integrity Management, LLC, or any others whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from
the date of this order. See id. R

. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 5th day of February , 201 5

.
sni-ex1031a_7.htm


 

Exhibit 10.31.A

 



9721 Sherrill Blvd. | Knoxville, TN  37932865-560-4440cynthia.gibson@scrippsnetworks.com

Cynthia L Gibson

Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer 

 

Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement



August 19, 2015

 

Mr. Burton Jablin

9721 Sherrill Boulevard

Knoxville, TN 37932

 

Re:Amendment to Employment Agreement

 

Dear Burton:

 

This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to your Employment Agreement with Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc. (the “Company”), dated as of September 1, 2013, (the “Employment Agreement”), amends the Employment Agreement as expressly stated herein.  

 


	
1.
	
Duties.The first sentence of Section 2 of the Employment Agreement is amended by replacing “President, Scripps Networks” with “Chief Operating Officer, Scripps Networks Interactive”.




 


	
2.
	
Compensation.  The first sentence of Section 3(a) is amended by replacing “$850,000” with “$1,050,000 (effective August 1, 2015).” The first sentence of Section 3(b) is amended by replacing 80% with 100%.




 


	
2.
	
No Other Amendments.  Except as expressly amended, modified and supplemented hereby, the provisions of the Employment Agreement are and will remain in full force and effect and shall be binding on the parties thereto.  References in the Employment Agreement or in any other document to the Employment Agreement shall refer to the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby.




 


	
3.
	
Counterparts.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.




 

If the foregoing correctly sets forth our understanding, please sign, date and return all three copies of this Amendment to the undersigned for execution on behalf of the 

 

 

 




Burton Jablin

August 19, 2015

Page 2

 

 

 

 

 

Company; after this Agreement has been executed by the Company and a fully-executed copy returned to you, it shall constitute a binding agreement between us.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

/s/ Cynthia L. Gibson

________________________

Cynthia L. Gibson

EVP, Chief Legal Officer 

 

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

 

/s/ Burton Jablin

__________________________________

Burton Jablin
Exhibit 10.7

                                      NOTE

$2,000                                               Date: February 16, 2000


     FOR  VALUE  RECEIVED,   Archer  Systems  Limited,   Inc.,  the  undersigned
("Payor"),  hereby  promises  to pay to the order of  Richard J.  Margulies,  an
individual,  ("Holder"), the principal amount of $2,000.00,  payable twenty four
(24) months after the date first set forth above.  The  principal  amount hereof
from time to time  outstanding  shall bear  interest  at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum,  payable on the date set forth  above.  All  payments  hereunder
shall be in lawful  money of the United  States of America at the address of the
Holder  hereof or at such  address as shall be specified by the Holder to Archer
Systems Limited, Inc.
     If any default shall be made in the payment of interest or principal,  then
the Holder, by written notice to the Payor, may exercise all of its legal rights
to collect  the  balance due unless  within  five (5)  business  days after such
notice the default  shall be cured by Payor.  Such notice  shall be deemed given
three (3) days after having been  deposited in the United  States Mail  properly
addressed  and  sent by  registered  mail to the  particular  addressee,  return
receipt requested.

     Prepayments may be made in this note  voluntarily at any time and from time
to time, without penalty.



                                                 Archer Systems Limited, Inc.


                                                 BY:/s/Walter J. Krzanowski
                                                 --------------------------
                                                       Walter J. Krzanowski
                                                       Secretary/Treasurer


                                        2
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

                                     BY THE
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of LION, Inc., a Washington
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of
Randall D. Miles, Chief Executive Officer, and Steve Thomson, Chief Financial
Officer, of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350), that to his knowledge:

(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.




CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


/s/ RANDALL D. MILES                        /s/ STEVE THOMSON
------------------------------------        -----------------------------------
Randall D. Miles                            Steve Thomson


AUGUST 14, 2006                             AUGUST 14, 2006
------------------------------------        ------------------------------------








                                       1
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Michael Kohdrashoff, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Suffolk County,

March 27, 1958.

*212
      *Michael Demetriou*for petitioner.

*Gordon M. Lipetz*for respondent.

Edgar F. Hazleton, S.

This is an application by petitioner, who is the daughter of the decedent, to open up the probate proceeding in her father’s estate so that she can come in and file objections to his will. She says she was not served with a citation. The respondent, who was decedent’s late widow, confesses the charge but urges by way of avoidance that the daughter, being illegitimate, cannot share in her father’s estate and accordingly is not an interested party. Some preliminary testimony has been taken and this court understands that it has the power to preliminarily resolve the status of the daughter.

My answer is that the petitioner was not left out of the probate proceedings because of inadvertence or mistake, but was deliberately by-passed by respondent, who had knowledge of the facts. This court cannot condone such procedure and disregard of a constitutional right. *“*The basic necessity for admitting as litigants in a probate proceeding all persons who have an interest to protect, was made clear in *Matter of Davis*(182 N. Y. 468); *Matter of Rose*(185 Misc. 33); *Matter of Aspenleiter*(187 Misc. 167), and *Matter of Zimmerman*(104 Misc. 516). In the latter case the court at pages 541-542 stated ‘ it is apparent that liberality as to parties to contested probates is an inherited tradition of great antiquity in courts of this character. * * * ’ In *Matter of*Greeley, 15 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 393, in the year 1873, Surrogate Coffin held that any interest, however slight, or even the bare possibility of an interest, was sufficient to entitle a party to appear in opposition to the probate of a testamentary paper.” *(Matter of Carll,*201 Misc. 829, 833.) *“*It is not the policy of the laws to deprive parties of their proprietary rights and interests without affording them an opportunity to be first heard ”. *(Matter of Rose,*supra, p. 38.)

The right to file objections to the probate of a will is a property right which belonged to petitioner. *(Matter of Burridge,*234 App. Div. 457, revd. on other grounds 261 N. Y. 225.) *213Whether or not the daughter was born of a legal marriage, she being the daughter of decedent may have at least some right to protect which in the interests of justice and out of regard for orderly procedure would entitle her to be cited. There is no doubt that decedent acknowledged petitioner to be his daughter, whether she was born of a lawful union or otherwise, and the tendency today is to give the status of a distributee to a child who has been acknowledged by its father even though born out of wedlock.

The daughter is entitled to her day in court. Therefore, her petition is granted and the decree admitting her father’s will to probate without notice to her is vacated and set aside. Therefore, *status quo ante*will be restored from which point petitioner may proceed as advised.

Submit order on notice.
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, and therefore denies Wells’s request for oral argument. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LORRAINE ALTHEA WELLS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

FRANKLIN APARTMENTS, Tenants; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-57031

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-05958-R-SH

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

FILED

MAR 09 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LSS/Research 2 08-57031

Lorraine Althea Wells appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in

her action alleging various claims against the Franklin Apartments and/or tenants,

the City of Santa Monica, and Westside Regional Center. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both the existence of subject

matter jurisdiction, Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir.

2005), and a grant of summary judgment, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056

(9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wells’s claims against the City of

Santa Monica for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because her complaint does not

allege facts to support federal question or diversity jurisdiction against the City. 

See Peralta, 419 F.3d at 1068 (“In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is

generally conferred upon federal district courts either through diversity

jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331.”); see also Vaden v. Discover Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009)

(explaining that section 1331 confers jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under”

federal law and that an action “arises under” federal law only where the plaintiff’s

statement of the claim shows that the claim is based on federal law).

To the extent that Wells has alleged any causes of action against Franklin

Apartments, the district court properly determined that they were foreclosed by
LSS/Research 3 08-57031

Wells’s prior settlement agreement with the owners. See Marder v. Lopez, 450

F.3d 445, 449-50 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing release of claims under California

law). To the extent that Wells has alleged any causes of action against the tenants

of Franklin Apartments, she failed to name those individuals and to serve them

with the summons and complaint, so they were never properly made parties to the

action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.

Wells’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAUL MASA MONTERO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-70495

Agency No. A099-580-732

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 12, 2014** 

Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Raul Masa Montero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from

an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal, and

denying his motion to remand. We dismiss the petition for review.

FILED

JUN 17 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Masa Montero

failed to demonstrate the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship necessary for

cancellation of removal. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.

2012) (order) (“[A]bsent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, we lack

jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that an alien failed to

prove that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship . . . .”).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Masa

Montero’s new evidence of hardship accompanying his motion to remand did not

alter its underlying hardship determination. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d

592, 601 (9th Cir. 2006) (“If . . . the BIA determines that a motion to reopen

proceedings in which there has already been an unreviewable discretionary

determination concerning a statutory prerequisite to relief does not make out a

prima facie case for that relief, [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes our visiting

the merits . . . .”).

Masa Montero’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider either the

hardship evidence that he presented at the hearing or his new hardship evidence

accompanying his motion to remand are not colorable questions of law that would

invoke our jurisdiction. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978

2 13-70495
(9th Cir. 2009) (“To be colorable in this context, . . . the claim must have some

possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

3 13-70495
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 222 (Thursday, November 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Air Act

    In accordance with 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, notice is hereby given 
that on October 30, 2000, a proposed consent decree in United States v. 
Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, Civil Action No. 00-1942 
(PG), was lodged with the United States District Court for the District 
of Puerto Rico. The United States' complaint sought injunctive relief 
and civil penalties under the Clean Air Act (``CAA'') against the 
Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (``PRASA''), in regard to 
violations of the New Source Performance Standards for sewage treatment 
plants and the Puerto Rico State Implementation Plan, resulting from 
PRASA's operation of the multiple hearth furnace (``MHF'') sludge 
incineration facility at its Puerto Nuevo wastewater treatment plant 
located in Puerto Nuevo, Puerto Rico.
    The consent decree provides that PRASA shall pay a civil penalty of 
$80,000 and implement a supplemental environmental project, consisting 
of the installation of belt filter presses at its Bayamon wastewater 
treatment plant, estimated to cost about $692,000. The consent decree 
also requires PRASA to render its MHF units inoperable and enjoins 
PRASA from any future operation of those units.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date 
of this publication. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044, and 
should refer to United States v. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer 
Authority, D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-1874A.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, Federal Office Building, Rm. 101, Carlos E. 
Chardon Avenue, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico 00918 and at the Region II office 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New 
York 10007. A copy of the proposed consent decree may also be obtained 
by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 
7611, Washington, D.C. 20044. In requesting a copy, please enclose a 
check (there is a 25 cent per page reproduction cost) in the amount of 
$7.75 payable to the ``Consent Decree Library.''

Bruce S. Gelber,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment & Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 00-29295 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,807
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    108,629
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          73,535
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            72,046
<LOANS>                                        318,850<F1>
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,012
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 540,473
<DEPOSITS>                                     393,977
<SHORT-TERM>                                    68,964
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,913
<LONG-TERM>                                      9,207
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            57
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,355
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 540,473
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 13,085
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,226
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   312
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                18,623
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,368
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,008
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,615
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      180
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  46
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,490
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,490
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,756
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.65
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.45
<LOANS-NON>                                        227
<LOANS-PAST>                                        46
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   115
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,279
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      592
<RECOVERIES>                                       145
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,012
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,012
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
<FN>
<F1>Includes mortgages available-for-sale and net of allowance
for loan losses of $5,012.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Attachment-CASNumber1014979-92-0KnownCompositionCommonNameCASRegistryNameCASNumberComponent 1 Trade SecretTrade SecretComponent 2 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 3 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 4 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 5 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 6 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 7 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 8 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 9 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 10 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 11 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 12 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 13 Trade SecretTrade SecretWater Water7732-18-5Others Please See BelowCurrent State of Knowledge on the composition of "others"CommonNameCASRegistryName orStructureCASNumber or otherinformationComponent 14 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 15 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 16 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 17 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 18 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 19 Trade Secret Trade SecretComponent 20 Trade SecretUnknowns Various Combinations of most of the above Materials
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 117

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to restrict

the requirement of citizenship at birth by virtue of birth in the United

States to persons with a legal resident mother or father.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1993

Mr. BEILENSON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to restrict the requirement of citizenship at birth

by virtue of birth in the United States to persons with

a legal resident mother or father.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

•HJ 117 IH

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission

3 for ratification:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE—

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. All persons born in the United States,

6 and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, of a mother or fa7 ther who is a legal resident of the United States and all

8 persons naturalized in the United States are citizens of

9 the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

10 The first sentence of section 1 of the fourteenth article

11 of amendment to the Constitution of the United States

12 is hereby repealed.

13 ‘‘SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to en14 force this article by appropriate legislation.

15 ‘‘SECTION 3. This article shall apply to persons born

16 after the date of its ratification.’’.

Æ