alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DERBIS *v.*DERBIS.

1. Appeal and Error — -Evidence—Finding op Fact by Trial Court.

An appellate court will not overturn findings of fact in a chancery case unless it is convinced that it would have reached the different result had it been sitting as the trial court, especially where trial court has found testimony of plaintiff seeking to set aside a conveyance of land incredible, unsatisfactory, and unconvincing.

2. Costs — Setting Aside Conveyance.

No costs are awarded on appeal in father’s action against his son and daughter-in-law to avoid a deed conveying property to the defendants in which trial court’s denial of the relief sought is affirmed.

References por Points in Headnotes

[1] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 839.

£2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 1010.

Appeal from Kalamazoo; Zick (Karl F.), J.

Submitted Division 3 March 5, 1968, at Grand Rapids.

(Docket No. 4,022.)

Decided June 10, 1968.

Rehearing denied July 29, 1968. Leave to appeal denied December 10, 1968.

See 381 Mich 790.

*640Complaint by Louis Derbis against Victor George Derbis and Dorothy Derbis to void a deed conveying property from plaintiff to defendants, to have defendants declared trustees of the property for the benefit of plaintiff, and to have defendants ordered to reconvey the said property to plaintiff. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Fox, Thompson & Morris,*for plaintiff.

*Fred A. Sauer, Sr.,*for defendants.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff filed this action against his son and daughter-in-law to void a deed by which plaintiff and his wife conveyed to defendants the home of plaintiff but reserved in plaintiff a life estate, and to have the son declared a trustee of the property for the benefit of plaintiff and ordered to reconvey. The alleged grounds for the action were mistake, plaintiff’s ignorance, and violation of fiduciary relation by the son. In denying the relief sought, the trial court found that defendants had established the fairness and good faith of the transaction, that there was no mistake, that plaintiff and his wife fully understood the transaction, and that there was no violation of the fiduciary relation between son and father. The trial court further found that the only basis for the action was that plaintiff had changed his mind after freely, voluntarily and knowingly executing the deed.

This appeal contests the factual findings on which the trial judge based his denial of the relief sought. A careful review of the record does not convince us that we would have reached a different result had we sat as the trial judge, especially in view of his finding that.plaintiff’s testimony was incredible, unsatisfactory and unconvincing. The case is *641very similar to *Salvner*v. *Salvner*(1957), 349 Mich 375, in which the trial and supreme courts denied relief.

Affirmed, but without costs because of the circumstances of the case.

Holbrook, P. J., and Quinn and McIntyre, JJ., concurred.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6612 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6612

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify 
    those classes of individuals born in the United States who are 
         nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2023

Mr. Babin (for himself, Mr. Hern, Mr. Roy, Mr. Donalds, Mr. Posey, Mr. 
Rosendale, Mr. Brecheen, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Jackson of Texas, Mr. Duncan, 
 Mr. Allen, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Norman, Mr. Crane, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
Mr. Harris, Mr. Tiffany, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Carter 
  of Georgia, Mr. Hunt, and Mr. Ogles) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify 
    those classes of individuals born in the United States who are 
         nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Birthright Citizenship Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED 
              STATES.

    (a) In General.--Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
        following'';
            (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) as 
        paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Definition.--Acknowledging the right of birthright 
citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the 
Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered 
`subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States for purposes of 
subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of 
parents, one of whom is--
            ``(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
            ``(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in 
        the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
            ``(3) an alien performing active service in the armed 
        forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States 
        Code).''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall 
not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any 
person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Joshua PATERNOSTER-COZART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronaldo MYERS, Superintendent of Hampton Roads Regional Jail, Respondent-Appellee, and Hampton City Circuit Court; Linda Bachelor Smith, Clerk; Hampton Sheriffs Office; B. J. Roberts, Sheriff, Defendants.

No. 17-6189

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 31, 2017

Decided: August 25, 2017

Joshua Paternoster-Cozart, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

*635Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joshua Paternoster-Cozart seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that the issue Paternoster-Cozart sought to raise was litigated in a previous § 2254 petition, and he accordingly has not made the requisite showing. Thus, we grant the motion for party substitution and replace Bob McCabe with Ronaldo Myers, deny the motion to appoint counsel and expedite decision, deny the motion for a certificate of appealability, deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.19
                               AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      This Amendment No. 1 (the "Amendment") to the Employment Agreement (the
"Agreement"), dated as of July 10, 2000, entered between Frank R. Reilly,
residing at 23 Penrose Lane, Princeton Jct., New Jersey 08550 ("Executive"), and
Precision Partners, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), is entered
into as of March 22, 2001. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein will
have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.

                                    RECITALS

      A.    The Executive is currently the Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company and Precision Partners Holding Company, a
Delaware corporation ("PPHC", and together with the Company collectively,
"Precision").

      B.    Each of Executive and Precision desires to amend the Agreement as
follows.

      Accordingly, the parties hereby agree as follows:

Section 1.  AMENDMENTS. The Agreement is hereby amended as set forth below:

            Section 1.5(a) is amended by adding after the word "vest" in line
            thirteen thereof, "on the seventh (7th) anniversary of the Effective
            Date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Performance-Based Options
            shall accelerate and become exercisable", by replacing the word
            "such" in line thirteen thereof with "a" and by replacing the word
            "Such" at the beginning of the fourth sentence in the twenty-sixth
            line thereof with "Except as set forth in the preceding sentence,
            such".

Section 2.  EFFECTIVENESS. This Amendment will be deemed effective as of March
22, 2001.

Section 3.  COUNTERPARTS. This Amendment may be executed in separate original or
facsimile counterparts, each of which will be deemed to be an original
instrument and all of which taken together will constitute a single instrument.


<PAGE>


      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be
duly executed as of the date first above written.



                                       PRECISION PARTNERS, INC.



                                       By /s/ John G. Raos
                                         ------------------------------------
                                          John G. Raos
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer




                                       EXECUTIVE


                                       /s/ Frank R. Reilly
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Frank R. Reilly
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CALVIN ATKERSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 282 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CALVIN ATKERSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 283 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CALVIN ATKERSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 284 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 6th day of December, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         575,476
<SECURITIES>                                12,799,706
<RECEIVABLES>                                  730,528
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    242,354
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,460,775
<PP&E>                                       3,307,048
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,059,266
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,782,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,161,868
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            85
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,620,215
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,782,168
<SALES>                                        843,125
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               843,125
<CGS>                                          775,822
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  775,822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,842,536
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,568,193)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,568,193)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.54)
        

</TABLE>
#### EVADE, LLC, Appellant v. UNDER ARMOUR, INC., Cross-Appellant

2016-1531

2016-1532

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 28, 2017

John L. Welch, Wolf, Greenfield <& Sacks, PC, Boston, MA, argued for appellant.

Leigh Lindquist, Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by Gary D. Krug-man.

JUDGMENT

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is

Ordered and Adjudged:

Per Curiam (Newman, Moore, and O’malley, *Circuit Judges).*

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.

No costs.
[769 NYS2d 779]

#### In the Matter of Michael J. Duffy, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee of the Fifth Judicial District, Petitioner.

Fourth Department,

December 31, 2003

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Anthony J. Gigliotti, Principal Counsel, Fifth Judicial District Grievance Committee,*Syracuse, for petitioner.

*84
      *Primo, Primo & Kirwan LLP,*East Syracuse *(John B. LaParo*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law by this Court on June 27, 1985, and maintains an office for the practice of law in Syracuse. The Grievance Committee filed a petition charging respondent with acts of misconduct including neglecting client matters. Respondent filed an answer admitting certain material allegations of the petition and the parties executed a stipulation resolving outstanding issues of fact. Respondent appeared before this Court and submitted matters in mitigation.

We conclude that respondent violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

> DR 1-102 (a) (5) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [5])—engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

> DR 1-102 (a) (7) (22 NYCRR 1200.3 [a] [7])—engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer;

> DR 4-101 (b) (1) (22 NYCRR 1200.19 [b] [1])—knowingly revealing a confidence or secret of a client;

> DR 6-101 (a) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.30 [a] [3])—neglecting a legal matter entrusted to him; and

> DR 9-102 (c) (3) (22 NYCRR 1200.46 [c] [3])—failing to maintain complete records of all funds of a client or third person coming into his possession and render appropriate accounts to the client or third person regarding them.

We have considered, in mitigation, that the misconduct occurred at a time when respondent was suffering from psychological problems and alcoholism, for which he is receiving counseling and treatment. Additionally, we note respondent’s expression of extreme remorse. Accordingly, after consideration of all of the factors in this matter, we conclude that respondent should be censured on condition that he continues to participate in and to be monitored by the New York State Bar Association Committee on Lawyer Alcoholism and Drug Abuse for a period of 24 months. In the event that respondent fails to continue in the program, violates a condition of participation in the program or commits an act of misconduct during the monitoring period, the Grievance Committee is authorized to apply for an order returning the proceeding to this Court for consideration of the imposition of additional discipline *(see Matter of Huyck,*207 AD2d 88 [1994]; *Matter of Reichert,*205 AD2d 5 [1994]).

*85Green, J.P., Wisner, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ., concur.

Order of censure entered.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11099-11100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04100]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Advisory Committee for Polar Programs; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the 
following meeting:
    Name and Committee Code: Advisory Committee for Polar Programs 
(1130).
    Date and Time: March 24-25, 2022; 11:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
    Place:

[[Page 11100]]

     National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, 
Virginia 22314 [verbar] Virtual.
    Registration for the virtual meeting will be available two weeks 
prior to the meeting date. Final agenda and registration link will be 
located on the AC's website at: https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/advisory.jsp.
    Type of Meeting: Open.
    Contact Person: Beverly Walker, National Science Foundation, 2415 
Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; Telephone: (703) 292-
2614.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations to the 
National Science Foundation concerning support for polar research, 
education, infrastructure and logistics, and related activities.

Agenda

March 24, 2022; 11:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (Virtual)

<bullet> Upcoming field seasons and COVID-19
<bullet> Advisory Committee Liaison Updates
<bullet> Subcommittee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
<bullet> Antarctic Research Vessel Updates
<bullet> NSF Geoscience Directorate Activities Updates

March 25, 2022; 11:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (Virtual)

<bullet> Polar Partnerships
<bullet> Meeting with the NSF Director & Chief Operating Officer
<bullet> NASEM Mid-Term Report
<bullet> South Pole Station
<bullet> Russian Science Collaborations

    Dated: February 22, 2022.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-04100 Filed 2-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
B RIAN S CHWEITZER J OHN B OHLINGER

G OVERNOR L T. G OVERNOR

S TATE C APITOL • P.O. B OX 200801 • H ELENA, M ONTANA 59620

- 0801

T ELEPHONE : 406

- 444

- 3111 • F AX : 406

- 444

- 5529 • W EBSITE : WWW.MT.GOV 

# O FFICE OF THE 

# G

OVERNOR

S TATE OF 

## M ONTANA

December 8 , 20 1 0

James B. Martin

Regional Administrator

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region VIII, 8P

- AR

1595 Wynkoop St.

Denver, CO 80202

- 1129

RE : Montana Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) NAAQS Designations

Dear Mr. Martin:

As you are aware, EPA promulgated a revision to the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) on February 9 , 20 1 0 (75 FR 6474)

. Pur suant to 42 USC §7407 , Congress

directs governors to submit a list of areas designating as nonattainment, atta inment, or unclassifiable

with respect to a new or revised NAAQS . Such lists of designated areas are due no later than one year

following the promulgation of a new or revised standard

.

Montana designates all 56 counties in the state attainment for the re vised NO 2 NAAQS . T he information

provided in t he enclosed technical memorandum and the associated enclosure demonstrates that

Montana’s designation is appropriate for all counties

.

We anticipate working with you as we maintain Montana’s status with regar d to the revised NO 2 NAAQS

. If you have any questio ns regarding this action , please contact M. Eric Merchant

, the Department’s Air

Quality Policy and Planning Supervisor

, by telephone at (406) 444

- 1457 or by email at

emerchant@mt.gov

.

Sincerely,

BRIAN SCHWEITZER

Governor

E nclosure

cc: Richard Opper, Director, Department of Environmental Quality

Dave Klemp, Chief, Air Resources Management Bureau

M. Eric Merchant, Air Resources Management Bureau
#### Mary Andrews, Administratrix, Appellant, &c. *versus*Richard D. Tucker *et al.*

*Nov. 7th.*

If the creditors of an intestate estate represented insolvent, request the administrator to inventory certain real estate alleged to have been fraudulently conveyed by the intestate, accompanying the request with an offer of indemnity, the refusal of the administrator to inventory the same will be a sufficient cause for removing him from the trust, without proof that the conveyance was fraudulent.

This was an appeal from a decree of the judge of probate removing the appellant from the office of administratrix of the estate of her husband, Joseph Andrews, deceased, intestate. The estate had been represented insolvent. The decree was passed upon the petition of creditors of the intestate, praying for the removal of the administratrix on account of her refusing to inventory certain parcels oi real estate, to the end that the same might be sold for the payment of debts. The creditors represented that this real estate had been fraudulently conveyed by the intestate for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, and that they had given notice thereof to the administratrix and had requested her to cause the same to be inventoried as the real estate of the intestate; and they offered, in their petition, to indemnify her for so doing.

The administratrix appealed from the decree, “ because the real estate was conveyed by said Joseph Andrews in his lifetime to John H. Andrews *bond fide*and for a valuable consideration, and not for the purpose of delaying and defrauding the creditors of said Joseph.”

Shillaber, for the appellant,

objected that the decree was passed simply on the representation of the creditors, with out any evidence that the land in question had been fraudu *257lently conveyed. The remedy of the creditors is upon the administration bond. He cited *Johnson*v. *Libby,*15 Mass. R. 140 ; *Wildridge v. Patterson,*ibid. 148 ; *Mansfield*v. *Patterson,*ibid. 491.

*Nov. 8th.*

*B. Merrill, contra,*

relied on *Wildridge*v. *Patterson.*He referred also to *Newcomb*v. *Wing,*3 Pick. 168.

*Per Curiam.*

It was the duty of the administratrix to let the creditors have an opportunity to try the question of fraudulent conveyance. This could not be done before the judge of probate, but the trial must be before a jury. As the creditors offered to indemnify the administratrix, she ought not to have stood in their way.1

*Judgment affirmed with*costs.

1

 See Revised Stat. c. 71, § 11. The administrator is bound to inventory land which to his knowledge has been fraudulently conveyed by the intestate. *Minor*v. *Mead,*3 Connect. R. 289. But if the administrator has no knowledge that the conveyance was fraudulent, he cannot be made liable for not inventorying the property. *Booth*v. *Patrick,*8 Connect R. 106. See *Potter*v. *Titcomb,*1 Fairfield, 65.