alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jeanette Rote, Appellant, v George St. Peter, Respondent.

Kane, J. P.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Mercure, J.), entered May 16, 1984 in Montgomery County, which, *inter alia,*granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

*438Plaintiff commenced the instant action in September 1982 to recover damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of an automobile accident which occurred on October 27, 1981. In a bill of particulars, plaintiff acknowledged that she did not suffer a permanent injury; however, she contended that the injuries to her knee constituted: *“a*medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevented her from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted her usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred and eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury”. *(See,*Insurance Law § 5102 [d].) At an examination before trial, plaintiff explained that the only medical attention she received was rendered on visits to a hospital emergency room on the date of the accident, October 27, 1981, and shortly thereafter, on November 2, 1981. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was a student. Plaintiff stated that due to her injuries, she was forced to miss about a week of school and gym class for approximately 45 days. Plaintiff further stated that the only thing she was unable to do after January 1,1982 was take her customary long walks.

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury as defined in Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Special Term granted the motion and the instant appeal ensued.

An examination of the record supports Special Term’s determination. Plaintiff’s own testimony at the examination before trial belies her claim of serious injury. Moreover, plaintiff has failed to present medical evidence to substantiate her claim of serious injury *(see, Daviero v Johnson,*88 AD2d 732, 733; *Hezekiah v Williams,*81 AD2d 261). Accordingly, the order must be affirmed *(see, Jones v Sharpe,*99 AD2d 859, *affd*63 NY2d 645).

Order affirmed, with costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-107595) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-18966-99,
33-46724-99, 33-50270-99, 33-57675-99, 33-62394-99, 333-17407-99, 333-25857-99,
333-53912-99, 333-80511-99, 333-107450, and 333-107451) of Noble Corporation of
our report dated January 29, 2004 relating to the consolidated financial
statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
March 1, 2004
# C_2019182EN.01001801.xml

| 27.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 20 February 2019 — Atresm dia Corporación de Medios de Comunicación, S.A. v Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI) and Artistas e Intérpretes o Ejecutantes, Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE)

(Case C-147/19)

(2019/C 182/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Atresmedia Corporación de Medios de Comunicación, S.A.

Respondents: Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI) and Artistas e Intérpretes o Ejecutantes, Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE)

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the concept of the ‘reproduction of a phonogram published for commercial purposes’ referred to in Article 8(2) of Directives 92/100 (1) and 2006/115 (2) include the reproduction of a phonogram published for commercial purposes in an audiovisual recording containing the fixation of an audiovisual work? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the concept of the ‘reproduction of a phonogram published for commercial purposes’ referred to in Article 8(2) of Directives 92/100 (1) and 2006/115 (2) include the reproduction of a phonogram published for commercial purposes in an audiovisual recording containing the fixation of an audiovisual work?

| 2. | In the event that the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is a television broadcasting organisation which, for any type of communication to the public, uses an audiovisual recording containing the fixation of a cinematographic or audiovisual work in which a phonogram published for commercial purposes has been reproduced, under an obligation to pay the single equitable remuneration provided for in Article 8(2) of the aforementioned directives? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is a television broadcasting organisation which, for any type of communication to the public, uses an audiovisual recording containing the fixation of a cinematographic or audiovisual work in which a phonogram published for commercial purposes has been reproduced, under an obligation to pay the single equitable remuneration provided for in Article 8(2) of the aforementioned directives?

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61).

(2)  Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 28).

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

November 8, 2019

Order 

Clerk

November 8, 2019

158903(54)(55)

FRANK ANTHONY SCOLA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 158903

v COA: 338966

Wayne CC: 15-002804-NI

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION, and JP MORGAN CHASE &

CO.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

KATHLEEN SCOLA, ESTATE OF JOHN

BARROW BROWN, and CITY OF WAYNE,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel to 

extend the time for filing a brief amicus curiae is GRANTED. The amicus brief will be 

accepted for filing if submitted on or before November 27, 2019. On further order of the 

Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time for filing his reply is 

GRANTED. The reply will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before November 

8, 2019.
#### Eleanor Z. Martin, as Executrix of William V. Ziehm, Jr., Deceased, Respondent, v Heritage State, Ltd., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. (And Another Action.)

— Mikoll, J.

Appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Cholakis, J.), entered August 4, 1981 and December 31, 1984 in Albany County, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs motions to restore the actions to the Jury Trial Calendar.

Defendants Heritage State, Ltd., Colburn A. Jones, Wood-lake Apartments Company and Taurus Realty Company, Inc. (hereinafter defendants) contend that the instant actions had been marked "off’ the Supreme Court Calendar and, not having been restored within one year thereafter, are deemed abandoned pursuant to CPLR 3404 absent the demonstration of excusable delay, no intent to abandon the case, a meritorious claim and lack of prejudice to defendants.

In November 1980, the instant actions were marked "off’ the Supreme Court Calendar due to plaintiffs failure to answer the calendar. Upon plaintiffs motion, Special Term ordered the actions restored to the Jury Calendar on July 30, 1981. The order of restoration was conditioned on the final determination of appeals pending and upon the completion of discovery proceedings. Three years later, plaintiff again moved for an order restoring the actions to the calendar. Special Term granted said motion by order dated December 17, 1984 and entered December 31, 1984.

Defendants urge that the submission of the order of restoration on December 17, 1984 was so belated as to be impermissible under CPLR 3404. Defendants’ argument is premised on the fact that the case was allegedly marked off the Jury Trial Calendar for a second time in November 1981 and did not reappear until the December 17, 1984 order was signed. It is urged that the case was dismissed as of November 1982 pursuant to the self-executing clause of CPLR 3404 and that, even if the July 1981 order is presumed to have granted the conditional restoration, the action still remained subject to automatic dismissal under CPLR 3404 upon completion of the conditions.

We defer to the expressed intention of Special Term to *958restore this case in July 1981 and deem the case to have been restored then. Thus, CPLR 3404 is not applicable. We find, too, that Special Term was clearly within the proper bounds of its discretion in rejecting defendants’ demands for dismissal. In cases where the initial striking of the case from the calendar is voluntary rather than due to default, or where the action has been stricken with leave to restore, a sufficient excuse is made out in such circumstances to allow vacatur of a dismissal under CPLR 3404.

Orders affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
The HONORABLE DONALD J. STOHR, United States District Judge for the 1

Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_______________

Nos. 97-2296/3397

_______________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. * Appeals from the United States

 * District Court for the

$281,000, in U.S. Currency, * Eastern District of Missouri.

 *

Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

William Yancey Jones, *

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 7, 1998

 Filed: May 12, 1998

___________

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Yancey Jones appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment 1

in favor of the United States on its claim seeking forfeiture of $281,130 in currency
-2-

under 21 U.S.C. § 881. Jones argues that the government’s claim is barred by res

judicata because the currency was not included in the properties forfeited in Jones’s

prior criminal proceedings. Even assuming res judicata principles may apply between

civil and criminal forfeiture proceedings, cf. United States v. Maull, 855 F.2d 514, 516-

17 (8th Cir. 1988), Jones’s contention fails because the currency here at issue was not

before the court and adjudicated in the prior criminal proceedings. We also reject

Jones&s remaining jurisdiction, double jeopardy, and estoppel arguments as without

merit. Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.4

     FOURTH
AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) dated as of
November 30, 2009 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) by and between
ADVANCED PHOTONIX, INC., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and ROBIN F. RISSER, an individual
(“Holder”), to that certain SECURED PROMISSORY
NOTE (the “Note”) dated as of May 2, 2005, as
amended by the Amendment dated May 1, 2008, the Second Amendment dated November
26, 2008 and the Third Amendment dated April 1, 2009.

     The Company
and Holder have agreed to amend and modify the Note in accordance with the terms
and conditions hereinafter set forth. Unless otherwise defined herein,
capitalized terms shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the
Note.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of
the foregoing, the parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree to
replace in its entirety Section 1 of the Note as follows:

(1) PAYMENT OF
PRINCIPAL. The Principal shall be payable in
annual installments of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY SEVEN
DOLLARS ($166,667) on the first anniversary of the Issuance Date, ONE HUNDRED
EIGHTY THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY THREE DOLLARS ($183,333) on the
second anniversary of the Issuance Date, ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($150,000) on December 1, 2008,
ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($150,000) on
December 1, 2010, and a final installment of THREE HUNDRED SIXTEEN THOUSAND
EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY THREE DOLLARS ($316,833) on March 1, 2011 (the
“Maturity Date”).

Except to the extent amended hereby, the
Note remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms and the
Interest Rate (as defined in the Note) will continue to be paid at the rate
prescribed in Section 2 of the Note. The terms and conditions of this Amendment
shall be construed together with the terms of the Note as a single agreement,
provided that, to the extent any terms and conditions of the Amendment are
inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the Note, the terms and conditions
of this Amendment shall govern.

     IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the Parties as of the Amendment
Effective Date.

	 	ADVANCED PHOTONIX, INC.  
  
		 	 	  
				  
		By: 	/s/ 	Richard D. Kurtz  	 
				Richard D.
      Kurtz, 
				Chief
      Executive Officer  
				  
				  
				  
			/s/ 	Robin F. Risser  	 
				ROBIN F.
      RISSER
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**JERMALL E. JOHNSON,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 289 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 27th day of October, 2016, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**and Application for Relief are** DENIED

**.**
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ellancer Allen McGRADY, a/k/a Lance, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7739.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 30, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

Ellancer Allen McGrady, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ellancer Allen McGrady appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United, States v. McGrady,*No. 4:94-cr-00044-MR-1, 2010 WL 4823281 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2010). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 897 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 897

  To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 
clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to 
use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects and acid 
                       mine remediation programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 5, 2011

Mr. Bingaman (for himself, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Udall 
 of New Mexico, and Mr. Lee) introduced the following bill; which was 
    read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
                               Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to 
clarify that uncertified States and Indian tribes have the authority to 
use certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation projects and acid 
                       mine remediation programs.

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

SECTION 1. ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION.

    (a) Reclamation Fee.--Section 402(g)(6)(A) of the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1232(g)(6)(A)) is 
amended by inserting ``and section 411(h)(1)'' after ``paragraphs (1) 
and (5)''.
    (b) Filling Voids and Sealing Tunnels.--Section 409(b) of the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1239(b)) 
is amended by inserting ``and section 411(h)(1)'' after ``section 
402(g)''.
    (c) Use of Funds.--Section 411(h)(1)(D)(ii) of the Surface Mining 
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1240a(h)(1)(D)(ii)) is 
amended by striking ``section 403'' and inserting ``section 402(g)(6), 
403, or 409''.
                                 <all>
```
Converted by EDGARwiz


TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT




THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is entered into effective as of December 8, 2009 is entered into by and among Fero Industries, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the “Parent”), Pyro Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”).




R E C I T A L S

A.

The Parent and Company previously entered into that certain Share Exchange Agreement dated as of October 13, 2009 (the “Exchange Agreement”) pursuant to the which the parties thereto agreed that the Company’s shareholders would transfer all of their Company capital stock in exchange of an aggregate of 38,250,000 shares of Parent common stock and whereby upon consummation of the Exchange Agreement the Company would be a subsidiary of the Parent.

B.

The parties wish to terminate the Exchange Agreement and Section 9.03(a)(i) provides for the termination of the Exchange Agreement upon mutual written consent of the Parent and Company.




A G R E E M E N T

It is agreed as follows:

1.

Termination of Exchange Agreement.  In accordance with Section 9.03(a)(i) of the Exchange Agreement, the Parent and Company consent and agree that the Exchange Agreement is hereby terminated and the transactions described therein shall be abandoned without further action of the parties.

2.

Counterparts.  This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, any one of which need not contain the signatures of more than one party, but all such counterparts when taken together will constitute one and the same agreement.

3.

Entire Agreement.  This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof, and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements and understandings.

4.

Law Governing.  This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with and governed and enforced in all respects by the laws of the State of California.

 






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties to this Agreement has executed or caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first above written.

The Parent:

FERO INDUSTRIES, INC.,

a Colorado corporation

By: ___/s/Kyle Schlosser_____

      Name: Kyle Schlosser

      Title: Chief Executive Officer

The Company:

PYRO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

a Delaware corporation

By: /s/Alan Schechter_

      Name: Alan M. Schechter

      Title: Chief Executive Officer
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant, Soil and Nutrition Research: Ithaca, NY
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Research Units
                        Robert W. Holley Center for Agriculture & Health
                                    Emerging Pests and Pathogens ResearchSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Docsheadline bar Functional and Comparative Proteomics Center
               Mission Statement
               Directions to USPSNL
               Milestones
               Aboutus
               Honors and Awards
               Business
               Main
               Seminars
               James Russell
               Li Li
               Peter Bradbury
               Yong Yang
               Ross Welch
               Dave Schneider
               Theodore Thannhauser
               Edward Buckler
               Samuel Cartinhour
               James Giovannoni
               Raymond Glahn
               Senior Scientists
               Kochian
               PandP
               Staff Scientists/Post Doctoral Researchers
               Jean-Luc Jannink
               SS_temp
               Computational Models for Gene Control Networks in Pseudomonas syringae
               Interesting Links
               Research Infrastructure


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
* The Honorable Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3680

___________ Cornelius Moore, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Bruce Wagner; John Cherry, Dr.; State * [UNPUBLISHED] of Nebraska; Frank Hopkins, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 5, 2004 Filed: April 8, 2004

___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Nebraska inmate Cornelius Moore appeals the district court’s * dismissal of Moore’s civil complaint. After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude the district court properly dismissed Moore’s complaint as time-barred. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Moore’s motion for reimbursement of funds.