alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Free Gift Baptist Church, Inc., et al., Petitioners, against James W. McCray, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County,

March 25, 1958.

*Austin G. Cocussa*for petitioners.

*Solon B. Hanft*for respondent.

William B. Gboat, J.

This is a proceeding brought under section 964 of the Penal Law to restrain the respondent who, it is alleged, is no longer the lawful pastor of the petitioner Free Gift Baptist Church, Inc., from using such name or the name *“*ebee gift baptist CHUBCH, for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of his calling, or for any other purpose, or any simulation, derivation or approximation thereof, either alone or in conjunction with his name or with other words, in connection Avith his calling, religious services, meetings, or any other purpose whatsoever, and ordering and enjoining the said respondent to obliterate, delete and remove the name ebee gift

BAPTIST CHUBCH, INC., OT EBEE GIFT BAPTIST CHUBCH Or any simulation thereof in or about any building, edifice or structure Avithin the City of New York, in or about the building and premises knoAvn as No. 1054 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, New York, and in or about any place whatsoever within the City of New York, and in or about his stationery, listings, telephone books, signs, advertising and wherever the same may appear.”

*866The court is of the opinion that the summary remedy provided by section 964 of the Penal Law is not available to the situation presented in this litigation involving, as it does, serious questions of fact with respect to the respondent’s status in the petitioner church and his intent to deceive and mislead the public.

Under these circumstances, the court is constrained to deny the application without prejudice to a plenary suit in equity as petitioner may he advised.

Submit order.
EX-10.1



 EXHIBIT 10.1 

BIND THERAPEUTICS, INC. 
 October 24,
2013 
 Yurii Udaltsov, Cand. Sc. 
  

	Re:	Waiver of Director Compensation 

 Dear Yurii: 

This letter agreement confirms the understanding of BIND Therapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) that you desire to waive
all compensation payable to you by the Company for your service as a member of the Company’s board of directors (the “Board”) or any committee of the Board during the period commencing on the closing date of the initial
public offering of the Company’s capital stock and ending on the date you provide written notice of revocation to the Company as set forth below (the “Waiver Period”). Consequently, the Company will not pay to you, and
you will not be entitled to receive, any compensation for your services as a member of the Board or any committee of the Board during the Waiver Period, whether in cash, equity or property and whether under the Company’s non-employee director
compensation program or otherwise. You may revoke the foregoing waiver at any time by delivering written notice of revocation to the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, provided that any such revocation shall not be effective against, and you
shall not be entitled upon such revocation to receive, compensation for services performed as a member of the Board or any committee of the Board prior to the date such revocation is delivered. 

To acknowledge your agreement with and understanding of the foregoing, please countersign and return a copy of this letter agreement to me at
the Company’s principal executive offices or by email at AndrewHirsch@bindtherapeutics.com. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Andrew Hirsch
	Andrew Hirsch
	Chief Financial Officer


  

	
	Acknowledged and agreed:
	
	 /s/ Yurii Udaltsov

	Yurii Udaltsov, Cand. Sc.
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made to that certainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2012, by and amongWells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., as Depositor, Wells FargoBank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Certificate Administrator, TaxAdministrator and Custodian, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as Special Servicer,Trimont Real Estate Advisors, Inc., as Trust Advisor and U.S. Bank NationalAssociation, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-ThroughCertificates Series 2012-LC5 (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms used hereinnot otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of thisAgreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Servicesdo hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilledall of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton 

ManagingDirector 

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-10361

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 8:12-cv-00914-JSM-TGW, 8:09-cr-00440-JSM-TGW-3

ALTON JONES, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 4, 2014)

Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-10361 Date Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

PER CURIAM:

Alton Jones, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. 

Jones sought to raise two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based on his 

trial counsel’s failure to advise him of his ability to enter an open guilty plea and 

failure to pursue a substantial-assistance departure in a timely manner.

On appeal, Jones argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance 

by failing to advise him of Jones’s ability to enter open guilty pleas. He states that 

he was unaware of his ability to enter his pleas without a plea agreement or to enter 

an agreement without an appeal waiver. He contends that he was prejudiced by his 

counsel’s assistance: his pleas were, in effect, involuntary and he was precluded 

from pursuing a direct appeal or seeking habeas relief. He also contends that the 

district court’s sentence -- although within the guidelines -- is unreasonable.

The government asserts that the record is insufficient to evaluate the 

question on appeal and requests that we remand the case for further proceedings 

and factual development. It contends that the district court’s rationales (mainly 

that Jones had voluntarily pleaded guilty) for denying Jones’s motion were flawed 

because the rationales ignored the substance of Jones’s claims and were not 

supported by the record. The government notes that the record is currently 

Case: 13-10361 Date Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

insufficient to evaluate the performance of Jones’s trial counsel, partially due to the 

government’s choosing to submit no affidavit from said counsel.

“In a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, we review a district court’s legal 

conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error.” Devine v. United States, 

520 F.3d 1286, 1287 (11th Cir. 2008). “A claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.” Id. 

We agree with the government that the district court erroneously concluded 

that Jones was precluded from raising his claims based on his guilty pleas, where 

Jones specifically challenged the voluntariness of the pleas. We also agree that the 

record is insufficiently developed to evaluate Jones’s trial counsel’s performance. 

Therefore, we vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand the case for 

further proceedings and factual development.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Case: 13-10361 Date Filed: 04/04/2014 Page: 3 of 3
114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3274 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4567 Rockbridge Road in Pine Lake, Georgia, 

as the ‘‘Francis Manuel Ortega Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 3274 EH

1 SECTION 1. FRANCIS MANUEL ORTEGA POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 4567 Rockbridge Road in Pine 

4 Lake, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Francis Manuel Ortega Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Francis Manuel Or10 tega Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 1, 

2016. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3274 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Posttega Post Office’’. Pine Lake, Georgia, as the ‘‘Francis Manuel Or- al Service located at 4567 Rockbridge Road in
#### BREWSTER COUNTY v. TAYLOR.

No. 3771.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Dec. 15, 1938.

Frank .0. Ray, of Alpine, and Joseph G. Bennis, of El Paso, for plaintiff in error.

A. E. Owens, of Alpine, for defendant in error.

HIGGINS, Justice.

This is a suit by the appellee Taylor against Brewster County to recover the sum of $151.70 alleged to be due him as sheriff for the safe keeping, support and maintenance of prisoners confined in the Brewster County jail for certain months in 1937. Upon trial without a jury judgment was rendered in plaintiff’s favor for the amount stated.

The first point presented passes out of the case. A correction of the transcript obviates the point made.

The second point proceeds upon' the theory that the verified accounts offered in evidence by the plaintiff were insufficient to support the action, citing Nolan County v. Yarbrough, Tex.Civ.App., 34 S.W.2d 302, 303. In that cas.e it was held that verified accounts under Art. 3736 have no application to a demand of the present nature. This Court sustained an assignment com-' plaining of the admission in evidence of such accounts. No complaint is here made of the admission in evidence of the plaintiff’s verified accounts, and the question cited in the case cited is not here involved. The sheriff testified with reference to the accounts, and his evidence supports, the correctness of the accounts and the judgment of the court establishing the same as a valid demand against Brewster County.

The third point asserts that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment because it fails to show that the prisoners named in the accounts were prisoners within the meaning of Art. 1046, *1098C.C.P. The sheriff testified that “each prisoner named in these accounts was then or later actually charged with the commission of some offense.” For a person to be a prisoner it is not necessary for a complaint to have been lodged against him before he is incarcerated, since peace officers are allowed under certain circumstances to make arrests without warrant, and it will not be presumed that the sheriff violated the law either in making the arrest or in failing to take the prisoner before a magistrate immediately. The testimony quoted is sufficient prima facie to show that such persons were prisoners within the meaning of said Art. 1046.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.6**August 8, 2007     To: Jeff Reina    Bank of America    700 Louisiana St., 8th Floor    Houston, TX 77002       From: Richard Spears    Spears & Associates, Inc.    5110 South Yale, Suite 410    Tulsa, OK 74135       Re: Permission to use Spears &Associates statistical data in the Form S-4 registration statement for Cal Dive International, Inc.To Whom it May Concern:     Reference is made to the Form S-4 registration statement, as amended (the “RegistrationStatement”), relating to the proposed merger transaction between Cal Dive International, Inc. (“CalDive”) and Horizon Offshore, Inc. (“Horizon”). We hereby consent to all references to our name inthe Registration Statement and to the use of the statistical information supplied and reviewed byus set forth in the section of the Registration Statement entitled “Information About Cal Dive –Industry.” We further advise Cal Dive, its advisors and legal counsel that our role has beenlimited to the provision of such statistical data supplied by us.     With respect to such statistical data, we advise you that: **•** some information in our database is derived from estimates or subjective judgments;  **•** the information has been compiled from our internal sources and public documents, whichwe believe to be reliable and in good faith, but no representation or warranty expressed orimplied is made to its accuracy or completeness     We hereby consent to the filing of this letter as an exhibit to the Registration Statement ofCal Dive on Form S-4 to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, and to the reference to our firm in the sections of theRegistration Statement entitled “Experts.”SPEARS & ASSOCIATES, INC./s/ Richard B. Spears
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00549-CR

Willie Dan Majors III, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 53011, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The opinion and judgment dated March 10, 2005, are withdrawn.

In April 2002, the district court deferred adjudication after appellant Willie Dan

Majors III pleaded guilty to unlawfully carrying a weapon on a licensed premises. See Tex. Pen.

Code Ann. § 46.02 (West 2003). In August 2003, the court adjudicated Majors guilty and sentenced

him to five years in prison and a $490 fine. After Majors completed boot camp, he was placed on

community supervision. In August 2004, the court revoked supervision and imposed sentence after

Majors admitted violating the conditions of his supervision.

Majors’s attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without

merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In the brief, counsel evaluates the record and

states the professional opinion that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State,
2

516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Majors received a copy of counsel’s

brief and was advised of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro

se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: March 31, 2005

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 10.1


 


PROMISSORY
NOTE PAYABLE


FOR
VALUE RECEIVED, Entest Biomedical, Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Debtor’) , hereby promises to pay to the order of
Regen Biopharma, Inc., a Nevada corporation, the sum of Two Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Two ($2,222 ) Dollars, together with
simple interest thereon at the rate of 10 % per annum on the unpaid balance. Said sum shall be paid in the manner following:


Principal
and/or accrued interest due hereunder shall be due and Payable , in whole or in part, at the demand of the Holder. This Note may
be assigned to any third party, in whole or in part, at the sole option of Regen Biopharma, Inc. or any Holder in due course.


This
Note shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California without regard to the principles
of conflicts of law. Each of the Debtor and the Holder and any Holder in due course hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction
of the United States Federal and state courts located in San Diego , California with respect to any dispute arising under this
Note.


 


Signed
and sealed under penalty of perjury this 6th day of June, 2014.


 


ENTEST
BIOMEDICAL INC.


By:
/s/David Koos


Its:CEO


 


ACCEPTED
BY REGEN BIOPHARMA INC.


By:
/s/David Koos


Its:
CEO
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3553 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make residents of Puerto 

Rico eligible for the earned income tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 17, 2015 

Mr. PIERLUISI introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

residents of Puerto Rico eligible for the earned income 

tax credit. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Earned Income Tax 

5 Credit Equity for Puerto Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PUERTO RICO RESIDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR EARNED 

7 INCOME TAX CREDIT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 32 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 (relating to earned income) is amended 

10 by adding at the end the following new subsection: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3553 IH

1 ‘‘(n) RESIDENTS OF PUERTO RICO.— 

2 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of residents of 

3 Puerto Rico— 

4 ‘‘(A) the United States shall be treated as 

5 including Puerto Rico for purposes of sub6 sections (c)(1)(A)(ii)(I) and (c)(3)(C), 

7 ‘‘(B) subsection (c)(1)(D) shall not apply 

8 to nonresident alien individuals who are resi9 dents of Puerto Rico, and 

10 ‘‘(C) adjusted gross income and gross in11 come shall be computed without regard to sec12 tion 933 for purposes of subsections (a)(2)(B) 

13 and (c)(2)(A)(i). 

14 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION.—The credit allowed under 

15 this section by reason of this subsection for any tax16 able year shall not exceed the amount, determined 

17 under regulations or other guidance promulgated by 

18 the Secretary, that a similarly situated taxpayer 

19 would receive if residing in a State.’’. 

20 (b) CHILD TAX CREDIT NOT REDUCED.—Subclause 

21 (II) of section 24(d)(1)(B)(ii) of such Code is amended 

22 by inserting before the period ‘‘(determined without re23 gard to section 32(n) in the case of residents of Puerto 

24 Rico)’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3553 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made shall 

2 apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
| (1)   | the      quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Sunberta Resources Inc. for the quarter      ended December 31, 2007 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 quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the      quarter ended December 31, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects,      the financial condition and results of operations of Sunberta Resources      Inc. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By: |   /s/ Kelly      Sundberg                                                  |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  Name:     |  Kelly      Sundberg                                                            |
|  Title:    |  Principal      Executive Officer,Principal      Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  February      12, 2008                                                    |
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Cody Scott Gray , Appellant

No. 06

- 22

- 00140

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 369th District Court of Leon County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 22

- 0013CR ). Memorandum Opini on delivered by Justice Rambin

, Chief Justice Stevens and Justice van Cleef participating.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the judgment to reflect th at the offense of

conviction is a second

- degree felony. Because the judgme nt adjudicating guilt did not include a deadly

- weapo n finding, we further modify the judgment to refle c t the trial court ’ s deadly

weapo n fi nding. As modified, the judgment of the t rial court is affirmed. We note that the appellant, Cody Scott Gray , has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 7 , 2 023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTE ST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk