alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Herbert Messinger, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Selma Messinger, Deceased, Appellant, v Mount Sinai Medical Center et al., Defendants, Kevin Baumlin et al., Respondents, and Andrew Messinger et al., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellants.

[720 NYS2d 13]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, *J),*entered on or about August 10, 1999, which denied plaintiffs’ and counterclaim defendants’ motion to amend their pleadings to include a Statute of Limitations defense to defendants-respondents’ counterclaims and, upon such amendment, to dismiss those counterclaims, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of appellants dismissing defendants-respondents’ counterclaims. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 1, 1999, which denied plaintiffs and counterclaim defendants-appellants’ motion for re argument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a non-appealable order.

*345Pursuant to CPLR 203 (d), counterclaims which would otherwise be barred by the Statute of Limitations are not barred so long as they arise from the same transaction or occurrences as the primary claim *(Matter of SCM Corp. [Fisher Park Lane Co.],*40 NY2d 788). Here, the alleged assault and battery of defendant treating physicians by plaintiff and the defendants on the counterclaim, which occurred immediately upon hearing of decedent’s death, cannot be considered as arising from the same occurrence. The assault was not a part of the alleged malpractice but arguably only a result of it. The two actions are related, but there is no common thread tying the two together to warrant revival of the assault counterclaim under CPLR 203 (d) *(Levy v Kendricks,*170 AD2d 387).

Pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b) leave to amend a pleading is to be freely given absent significant prejudice or surprise directly resulting from the delay. Defendants fail to assert any claim of prejudice. The fact that plaintiff and defendants on the counterclaim failed to assert a reasonable excuse for their delay is insufficient to prohibit them from amending their reply *(Cameron v 1199 Hous. Corp.,*208 AD2d 454). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6854

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TOM J. BILLMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 98-7786

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TOM J. BILLMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CR-89-466-JFM, CA-97-2120-JFM)

Submitted: March 16, 1999 Decided: April 16, 1999
2

Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

No. 98-6854 affirmed and No. 98-7786 dismissed by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Charles Ivey Billman, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Barbara

Slaymaker Sale, Assistant United States Attorney, Joyce Kallam

McDonald, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

In this consolidated appeal, Tom J. Billman appeals the district court’s orders granting his motion under former Fed. R. Crim.

P. 35(b) and denying his motion for a new trial under Fed. R. Crim.

P. 33. Considering the grant of the motion for reduction of sentence first, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s

order and find no abuse of discretion. See United States v.

Guglielmi, 929 F.2d 1001, 1004-05 (4th Cir. 1991). There is no

plain error in the district court’s consideration of the financial

evidence in granting the motion for a reduction of sentence. See

Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Mitchell, 1 F.3d 235, 239

(4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order

that is the subject of No. 98-6854.

In attempting to appeal the district court’s order denying his

Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion, No. 98-7786, Billman filed an untimely

notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time

periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App.

P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder

v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978)

(quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).

Defendants in criminal prosecutions have ten days within which to

file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or

final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). The only exceptions to the
4

appeal period are when the district court extends the time to

appeal “[u]pon a showing of excusable neglect.” Id.

The district court entered its order on August 12, 1998;

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on August 26, 1998, which is

beyond the ten-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a

timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves

this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

No. 98-6854 - AFFIRMED

No. 98-7786 - DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.2**
Certification of Principal Financial Officer
I, Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr., certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bakers FootwearGroup, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;
(b) [reserved]
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
          November 12, 2004 /s/ Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.   Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.   Chief Financial OfficerBakers Footwear Group, Inc.(Principal Financial Officer)
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles HART, Appellant.

No. ED 105680

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: December 11, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 14, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Jessica M. Hathaway, 120 S. Central Ave., Suite 130, St. Louis, Missouri 63105.

For Respondent: JOSHUA D. HAWLEY, Karen L. Kramer, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Charles Hart ("Appellant") appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree, in violation of Section 568.045 RSMo. Appellant was sentenced as a prior and persistent felony offender to a term of 8 years of imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
[Cite as Toledo v. State, 122 Ohio St.3d 542, 2009-Ohio-4117.]

T HE C ITY OF T OLEDO ET AL ., A PPELLEES , v . T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLANT . [Cite as Toledo v. State, 122 Ohio St.3d 542, 2009-Ohio-4117.] Court of appeals’ judgment reversed on the authority of Lima v. State. (No. 2008-0975 — Submitted July 14, 2009 — Decided August 20, 2009.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-07-1261,
2008-Ohio-1957.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of
Lima v. State , 122 Ohio St.3d 155, 2009-Ohio-2597, 909 N.E.2d 616.
M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , and C UPP , JJ., concur.
L ANZINGER , J., dissents.

__________________ Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Solicitor General, and Sharon A. Jennings and Pearl M. Chin, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant. Kalniz, Iorio & Feldstein Co., L.P.A., and Donato Iorio, for amici curiae
Toledo Police Patrolman’s Association a nd Toledo Fire Fighters Local 92 in support of appellant.

______________________
(January 30, 2001)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Eric Pitt, Appellant.

[720 NYS2d 67]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered May 13, 1998, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant received meaningful representation in connection with his plea and sentence *(see, People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714; *People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404). The court was under no obligation to appoint new counsel when defendant’s attorney informed the court that defendant purportedly wished to make an application to withdraw his plea, and that such application was without legal foundation. Defendant did not, in *420fact, move to withdraw his plea, but instead made a supplication for leniency, and there is nothing in the existing record to indicate that defendant wished to offer any legal basis for vacatur of the plea. In any event, the record establishes the voluntariness of the plea and the propriety of the court’s enhancement of sentence for defendant’s violation of two conditions of his plea agreement (see, *People v Figgins,*87 NY2d 840).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence.

Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his *pro se*supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Andrias, Wallach, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION July 20 , 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2010 - 0162 This memorandum documents a meeting held on March 17, 2011 b etween AI SI , DOT and EPA and included the following individuals: AI SI : Ron Krupitzer and David Anderson DOT: Coralie Cooper EPA: By ron Bunker, Allen Duncan, Mary Walsh, Tony

Fernandez, and Angela Cullen The discussion focused primarily on potential opportunities for weight reductions in medium and heavy duty vehicle s through the use of high strength steel. Materials were provided to the agencies which are also included in the docket.
Exhibit 32.1
 
 
 CERTIFICATION 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 on Form 10-K/A for the period ended May 31, 2010 of Numbeer, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Annual Report”), I, Michael Allan English, Chairman, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 1. The Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2. The information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 Date: January 3, 2011
 
 /s/ Michael Allan English____
 Michael Allan English,
 President, Secretary Treasurer, Principal Executive Officer,
 Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 54 (Monday, March 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 12151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6239]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,452]


Kensington Windows, Inc., a Subsidiary of Jancor Companies, Inc., 
Vandergrift, PA; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application postmarked February 27, 2009, the International 
Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture 
Workers (IUE), Local 188643 requested administrative reconsideration of 
the negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the 
subject firm. The determination was issued on January 9, 2009. The 
Notice of Determination was published in the Federal Register on 
February 2, 2009 (74 FR 5871).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of vinyl replacement windows and 
doors did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the 
subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided 
additional information regarding imports of vinyl replacement windows 
and doors and alleged that the customers might have increased imports 
of vinyl replacement windows and doors in the relevant period.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of March 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-6239 Filed 3-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Unassociated Document


     

    
      Exhibit
10.1

      AMENDMENT
NO. 1

      TO
THE

      AMENDED
AND RESTATED

      BLUEFLY,
INC. 2005 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

      


      Bluefly,
Inc., having previously established the Amended and Restated Bluefly, Inc. 2005
Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), and having
obtained stockholder approval for the amendment to the Plan set forth herein,
does hereby amend the Plan by deleting paragraph (a) of Section 5 of the Plan in
its entirety and replacing it with the following:

      


      “(a)
Subject to the provisions of Section 8 hereof, the aggregate number of shares of
Stock available for issuance as Awards under the Plan shall not exceed 2,431,103
shares, increased for shares of Stock that are represented by awards outstanding
under the Prior Plans on the original effective date of this Plan (prior to any
amendments) that, subsequent to such date, have been or are in the future
forfeited, cancelled or expire unexercised under the Prior Plans.”

      


      [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left
Blank.]

       

      
        
           

        

        
           

          
            

          

        

        
           

        

      

       

      IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment No. 1 to the
Amended and Restated Bluefly, Inc. 2005 Stock Incentive Plan as of the 25th day of
February, 2010.

       

      
         

        
          
            	 
      	
                    BLUEFLY,
      INC.

                  	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
                    By:

                  	
                    /s/ Kara Jenny

                  	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
                    Name:  
      

                  	
                    Kara
      Jenny

                  	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
                    Title:

                  	
                     Chief
      Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.41


 


December 31, 2009


 


Mr. Dan Devine


Chief Financial Officer


Bridgepoint Education, Inc.


13500 Evening Creek Drive
North, Suite 600


San Diego, CA 92128


 


RE:          Bridgepoint Education, Inc. (“Borrower”)


Obligor
Number 158 (Revolving Line of Credit)


 


Dear Mr. Devine:


 


Comerica
Bank  (the “Bank”) has approved the
extension of the maturity date of the above referenced credit facility as
evidenced by that certain note/agreement, dated April 12, 2004 (as such
may be amended, restated, modified, supplemented or revised from time to time,
the “Agreement”) from December 31, 2009 to January 31, 2010.  Upon your execution of a counterpart of this
letter, the maturity date shall be so amended.


 


The
Agreement, as modified and amended hereby, shall be and remain in full force
and effect in accordance with its respective terms and hereby is ratified and
confirmed in all respects.  Except as
expressly set forth herein, the execution, delivery, and performance of this
modification and amendment shall not operate as a waiver of, or as an amendment
of, any right, power, or remedy of Bank under the Agreement, as in effect prior
to the date hereof.  Borrower ratifies
and reaffirms the continuing effectiveness of all promissory notes, guaranties,
security agreements, mortgages, deeds of trust, environmental agreements, and
all other instruments, documents and agreements entered into in connection with
the Agreement.


 


By
execution of a counterpart of this letter, Borrower further represents and
warrants that the representations and warranties contained in the Agreement are
true and correct in all material respects as of the date hereof, and that no
event of default has occurred and is continuing under the Agreement or any
other document, instrument or agreement entered into in connection therewith,
in each case except as set forth on Schedule A (Exceptions) attached to the
extension letter dated October 30, 2009 between Bank and Borrower, which is
incorporated herein by this reference.


 


Sincerely,


Comerica Bank


 


 


	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Greg Park

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Greg Park

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Vice President

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Acknowledged and
  accepted on December 31, 2009:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Daniel J. Devine

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Daniel J. Devine

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Chief Financial Officer
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000427

26-FEB-2015

08:25 AM
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles WYSINGER, Defendant / Appellant.

No. ED 105035

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

FILED: December 12, 2017 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 30, 2018 Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 3, 2018

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Randall Brachman, Missouri Public Defenders Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Mary Highland Moore, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Charles Wysinger appeals from judgment upon his conviction after a bench trial on one count of first-degree endangering the welfare of a child in violation of Section 568.045 RSMo. 20001 and one *615count of abuse or neglect of a child in violation of Section 568.060. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000 as amended.