alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Evelyn Sini, Appellant, v Theo Hyngstrom et al., Respondents.

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George Bundy Smith, J.), entered September 19, 1984, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint, affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The sponsor cooperative corporations’ refusal to consent to any assignment of subscription rights is an insurmountable bar to plaintiff’s action for specific performance of the parties’ otherwise enforceable contract for the assignment of defendant’s rights under the subscription agreement. Plaintiff’s claim of waiver of the subscription agreement’s nonassignment clause is belied by the record. Nor is there any merit to plaintiff’s argument that the said prohibitory clause is unenforceable against the assignee, even though the sponsor/cooperative corporation refuses to consent to any assignment, in the absence of express language therein rendering an assignment without such consent void. The clause is clear and unambiguous. Moreover, by specifically providing in their own agreement for a refund of the $1,000 down payment advanced by defendant in plaintiff’s behalf in the event the sponsor/cooperative corporation refused to consent, the parties implicitly recognized the clause’s enforceability. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
#### SMITH, Appellant, v. ESS, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 11, 1913.)

Action by Frank Smith against Charles Ess.

No opinion. Judgment (125 N. Y. Supp. 450) affirmed, with costs,
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13166]



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

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE


The ``Federal Register'' Online Via GPO Access; Public Meeting 
for Federal, State and Local Agencies, and Others Interested in a 
Demonstration of GPO Access, the Online Service Providing the ``Federal 
Register'' and Other Federal Databases

    The Superintendent of Documents will hold a public meeting for 
Federal, state and local government agencies, and any others interested 
in an overview and demonstration of the Government Printing Office's 
online service, GPO Access, provided under the Government Printing 
Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993 (Public 
Law 103-40).
    Sessions will be held at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the 
Chicago Illini Union, Chicago Room A, 828 South Walcott, Chicago, 
Illinois, on Monday, June 26, from 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and 11 a.m. to 
12:30 p.m. There is no charge to attend.
    The online Federal Register Service offers access to the daily 
issues of the Federal Register by 6 a.m. on the day of publication. All 
notices, rules and proposed rules, Presidential documents, executed 
orders, separate parts, and reader aids are included in the database as 
ASCII text files and as Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) 
files, with graphics provided in TIFF format. The online Federal 
Register is available via the Internet or as a dial-in service. 
Historical data is available from January 1994 forward.
    Other databases currently available online through GPO Access 
include the Congressional Record; Congressional Record Index, including 
the History of Bills; Congressional Bills; Public Laws; U.S. Code; and 
GAO Reports.
    Individuals interested in attending may reserve a space by 
contacting John Berger, Product Manager at the GPO's Office of 
Electronic Information Dissemination Services, by telephone: 202-512-
1525; by fax: 202-512-1262; or by Internet e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#066c696e6846636f6275363328636f62752861766928616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2d8dddadcf2d7dbd6c182879cd7dbd6c19cd5c2dd9cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>. Seating reservations will be accepted through 
Wednesday, June 21, 1995.
Michael F. DiMario,
Public Printer.
[FR Doc. 95-13166 Filed 5-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-02-M

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
BIPARTISAN LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP OF the UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, petitioner, v. Edith Schlain WINDSOR, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.

No. 12-785.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 27, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) No. 1:15-cr-00001-TLS-SLC

)

ALEJANDRO DELACRUZ )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, CHIEF JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan

Collins, on June 6, 2017, with the written consents of Defendant, counsel for Defendant, and

counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant under oath on the

record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and of

counsel for Defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that Defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not guilty,

to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and his
right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and is

not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that Defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty and that Defendant be

adjudged guilty of the offense charged in Count 3 of the eight-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Findings and

Recommendation be accepted and Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Chief Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the

Findings and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 6th day of June 2017.

/s/ Susan Collins 

Susan Collins,

United States Magistrate Judge

2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

CHARLOTTE DIVISION

Yolanda Chisolm,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Biomet, Inc., and John Does 1-10,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 3:14-cv-00268-FDW-DSC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY 

PENDING TRANSFER TO MDL AND 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

ANSWER

This matter comes before the Court on the Joint Motion of the Parties requesting a

stay of all proceedings in this matter pending the transfer of this action to the multidistrict 

litigation In re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2391, in the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (“MDL No. 2391”) and further 

to extend Defendant Biomet, Inc.’s time to answer the Plaintiff Yolanda Chisolm’s Complaint 

until five (5) days after the action has been transferred to MDL No. 2391. This Court has 

reviewed the Motion and the argument of the Parties, and for good cause shown,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion of the Parties is GRANTED and 

that this proceeding is STAYED pending its transfer to MDL No. 2391 in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Further, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

Defendant Biomet, Inc.’s time to answer the Plaintiff’s Complaint is hereby EXTENDED 

until five (5) days after this action has been transferred to MDL No. 2391.

SO ORDERED. Signed: May 28, 2014
#### Hooper *v.*Pierce.

*Detinue.*

(Decided June 13, 1907.

*44*South. 386.)

*Trial; Instructions; Evidence to Sustain.*— Where plaintiff has given a forthcoming bond and obtained possession of property in a detinue suit, in the absence of the proof of the value of property, in ease the verdict is for the defendant, it is error to reversal to instruct the jury that they should assess the value of the property at a given amount in the event of a verdict for defendant.

Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. W. W. Haralson.

Detinue by A. B. Hooper against B. F. Pierce for the recovery of three bales of cotton, for which plaintiff *506executed Ms forthcoming bond and on which the property was delivered to plaintiff. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Street & Isbell, for appellant.

Counsel discuss Wo assignments of error relative to the admission of evidence and cite authorities to support their contention. They insist that charge S was unauthorized under the facts in this case, and cite in support thereof, *Gersan v.*Norman, 111 Ala. 433.

John A. Lusk, for appellee. — No brief came to the Reporter.

McCLELLAN, j.

Action of detinue for decovery of cotton. The plaintiff had executed in proper order a forthcoming bond for the property, and there was judgment for defendant.

The bill of exceptions is silent as to any evidence of value of the property in question, and yet it appears that the court, by specially requested charge, instructed the jury that, if they found for the defendant, they should assess the value of the property at $117. The giving of this charge was error, for which the judgment must be reversed, and the cause *remanded.*— Gerson *v. Norman,*111 Ala. 433, 20 South. 453.

There are two other errors assigned, but there is no merit in them.

Reversed and remanded.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and Anderson, JJ., con-
exv10wxay



 





Exhibit 10(a)




Amendment to the Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan




          RESOLVED that, effective as of July 1, 2003, the third sentence of Section
4 of the Long-Term Incentive Compensation Plan is amended to read as follows:




“Any Shares subject to the terms and conditions of an Award under this
Plan which are forfeited or not issued because the terms and conditions
of the Award are not met or for which payment is not made in Stock may
again be used for an Award under the Plan.”
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1531 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1531

              For the relief of Veronica Kehinde Akintade.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2005

  Mr. Owens introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Veronica Kehinde Akintade.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR VERONICA KEHINDE AKINTADE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Veronica Kehinde Akintade 
shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence 
upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Veronica Kehinde Akintade enters the 
United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 
she shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and 
shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Veronica Kehinde Akintade, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Veronica 
Kehinde Akintade shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 
any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:15-CR-25-RL-PRC

 )

MONIQUE COLES, )

Defendant. ) 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY BY DEFENDANT MONIQUE COLES

TO: THE HONORABLE RUDY LOZANO, JUDGE,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant Monique Coles’ request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this matter came for hearing before Magistrate Judge Paul R.

Cherry, on January 14, 2016, with the consent of Defendant Monique Coles, counsel for Defendant

Monique Coles, and counsel for the United States of America.

The hearing on Defendant Monique Coles’ plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule

11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the

record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by Defendant Monique Coles under

oath on the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States

Attorney and of counsel for Defendant Monique Coles,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that Defendant Monique Coles understands the nature of the charge against her to which

the plea is offered;

(2) that Defendant Monique Coles understands her right to trial by jury, to persist in her plea
of not guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,

and to her right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that Defendant Monique Coles understands what the maximum possible sentence is,

including the effect of the supervised release term, and Defendant Monique Coles understands that

the sentencing guidelines apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some

circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by Defendant Monique Coles has been knowingly and voluntarily

made and is not the result of force or threats or of promises;

(5) that Defendant Monique Coles is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that Defendant Monique Coles understands that her answers may later be used against

her in a prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for Defendant Monique Coles’ plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept Monique Coles’ plea of guilty to the offense charged

in Count 1 of the Indictment and that Defendant Monique Coles be adjudged guilty of the offense

charged in Count 1 of the Indictment and have sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been

ordered. Should this Report and Recommendation be accepted and Monique Coles be adjudged

guilty, a sentencing date before Judge Rudy Lozano will be scheduled. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen days. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1).

So ORDERED this 14th day of January, 2016.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Mireya Patino Garcia v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00939-CR

Trial court case number: 1952529

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No 9 of Harris County

The reporter’s record was due on December 19, 2014. We granted an extension until 

January 20, 2015 to file both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. The clerk’s record was 

filed on December 29, 2014. On February 4, 2015, we again notified Garcia that the reporter’s 

record had not been filed due to nonpayment. On April 14, 2015, we sent a notice to Garcia 

stating that, unless he filed proof by May 15, 2015, of payment arrangements for the reporter’s 

record, we would consider the appeal on the briefs without the reporter’s record. TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(b)(4). No response was received. On May 21, 2015, we issued an order setting appellant’s 

brief due on June 22, 2015. On July 3, 2015, the Clerk of this Court sent a past-due brief notice. 

See TEX. R. APP. 38.8(b)(2). On July 27, 2015, Garcia’s retained counsel filed a motion to 

substitute and a motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The motion to 

substitute was granted on August 4, 2015 and an extension was granted until September 23, 2015 

to file the reporter’s record. On October 8, 2015, the court reporter advised this Court that 

Garcia had neither requested nor made payment arrangements for the reporter’s record. 

On October 22, 2015, this Court issued an order stating that unless we received notice 

within 14 days of the order that payment arrangements had been made for the reporter’s record, 

we would set appellant’s brief due. No response was received. 

Accordingly, we order appellant’s brief due on December 30, 2015.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 1, 2015
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1760 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1760

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin, as the 
          ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building''.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1760

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin, as the 
          ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 215 
Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Madison, Wisconsin, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. Post Office 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert M. La Follette, Sr. 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 16, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                                Clerks.
```
Zachary KRISTON, petitioner, v. Tony PEROULIS, et al.

No. 12-8137.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
### IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

20 2 2 WY 84

April Term, A.D. 20 2 2

June 29, 2022

ROBERT J. LAWLER,

Appellant

(Defendant),

v.

THE STATE OF WYOMING,

Appellee

(Plaintiff). S

- 22

- 0061



### O RDER 

### A FFIRMING THE 

### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### ’ S



### O RDER 

### R EVO K ING 

### P ROBATION

[¶ 1 ] This matter came before the Court upon its own motion following notification that

Appellant has not filed a pro se brief in the time allotted. Appellant took this appeal to

challenge the district court’s December 28

, 20 2 1

, Probation Revocation Disposition and

Order of Probation

. Appellant admitted he violated his probation

. The district court

revoked probation and imposed a sentence of two to four year s o n Ap p ellant’s c on viction

for felony driving under the influence

. W y o. Stat. Ann. § 31

- 5

- 23 3 ( b ) (i) & (e)

. The district

court suspended that sentence in favor of three years of supervised probation.

[¶2] On April 29 , 20 2 2 , Appellant’s court

- appointed appel late counsel e

- filed a Motion

to Withdraw as Counsel, pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This Court subsequently entered an Order Granting

Motion for Extension of Time to File Pro Se Brief. This Court ordered that, on or before

June 16 , 2022, Appellant was permitted to file with this Court a pro se brief specifying the

issues he would like th e Court to consider in this appeal. This Court also provided notice

that, after the time for filing a pro se brief expired, this Court would make its ruling on

counsel’s motion to withdraw and

, if appropriate, make a final decision on this appeal.

Appell ant did not file a pro se brief or other pleading in the time allotted.[¶3] Now, f ollowing a careful review of the record and the Anders brief submitted by

appellate counsel

, this Court finds that appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw should be

granted and the district court’s Probation Revocation Disposition and Order of Probation

should be affirmed

. I t is, therefore,

[¶4] ORDERED that the Wyoming Public Defender’s Office, court

- appointed counsel

for A ppellant Robert J. Lawler , is hereby permitted to withdraw as counsel of record for

A ppellant; and it is further

[¶5 ] ORDERED that the Ca mpbell County D istrict C ourt’s December 28

, 20 2 1

, Probation Revocation Disposition and Order of Probation

, be, and the same hereby is

, affirmed

.

[¶6] DA TED this 2 9 th d ay of June , 20 2 2

.

BY THE COURT:

/s/

KATE M. FOX

Chief Justice