alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jeffrey Beekman, Appellant, v Sylvan Lawrence, Inc., Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Wallach, J.), entered April 24,1984, denying plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to assert a cause of action under *659Labor Law § 240, modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, to deny the motion, without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers showing a basis for such relief.

Plaintiff brought this action against the owner and/or managing agent of premises 420 East 37th Street to recover for injuries suffered as the result of an accident occurring in the premises. Some four years after the accident and one year after the commencement of the action, he moved to add a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240. Special Term denied the motion on the grounds that there was no affidavit of merits by a person having personal knowledge of the facts and that it was barred by the Statute of Limitations. We disagree with the reasons ascribed by Special Term for denial of the motion, although we agree that denial of the motion was proper. However, we would allow plaintiff the opportunity to renew upon proper papers.

Initially, we note that the original complaint may have sufficiently apprised defendant of the nature of the plaintiff’s claim so that the proposed amended complaint falls within the ambit of CPLR 203 (e) *(see,*1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶¶ 203.29, 203.30).

However, the motion is supported solely by an attorney’s affidavit. This is insufficient *(Leonard Hosp. v Messier,*32 AD2d 596). Additionally, the papers set forth no basis for concluding that Labor Law § 240 was violated, or, indeed, is applicable. The sole allegation in that connection is that the action arose “out of events which took place on March 30, 1979, wherein plaintiff, while working upon a ladder at defendant’s premises, was precipitated to the ground and suffered severe personal injuries”. The proposed amended complaint supplements this by asserting that defendant employed plaintiff and failed to furnish or erect proper devices. If, in fact, the latter be the case, the action may well be barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 *(cf. Grancaris v Hass Co.,*79 AD2d 551), which provides that, as between employer and employee, workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy. In short, on this record,, we are unable to determine whether amendment is or is not warranted. Accordingly, while we agree with Special Term that the motion must be denied, our denial is without prejudice to renewal upon proper papers in which plaintiff will be required to demonstrate that he has a viable claim under Labor Law § 240. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Bloom, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
#### BAND’S REFUSE REMOVAL, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BOROUGH OF FAIR LAWN, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, CROSS-PETITIONERS, AND FRANK CAPASSO, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS, CROSS-RESPONDENTS.

October 17, 1960.

*Messrs. Budd, Lamer & Kent*for the petitioners, cross-respondents.

*Mr. Walter H. Jones*and *Mr. Morris Dobrin*for the respondents, cross-petitioners.

Denied.
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
 Great Basin Rangelands Research: Reno, NV
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Newsletter
                        Volume 1
                                    Volume 2Search small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Reno, Nevada Great Basin Rangelands Research Arid Lands Ecology







arid lands ecology labheadline bar Arid LandsEcology Lab  http://newinghamlab.weebly.com/  Current research projects include: Wind-driven soil erosion after wildfire in dryland systems
Climate change effects on post-fire restoration in the Great Basin
Post-fire vegetation and soil monitoring
Evaluating effects of prescribed fire, tree removal, and herbicide on Great Basin ecosystems
Grazing effects on grass establishment after fire
Post-fire rehabilitation effects on plant communities and fire regimes
Long-term ecosystem recovery after wildfire across the western US​
Restoring annual grass invaded sites in the Mojave Desert  /ARSUserFiles/20600500/AridLandsEcologyLab/beth GB.jpg Dr. Beth Newingham Research Ecologist 920 Valley Rd. Reno NV 89512 Office: 1-775-453-4961 Beth.Newingham@ars.usda.gov  Personnel: Graduate student: Ranae Sullivan Post Doc:  Brian Morra Technicians: Brian Howard Tyler Pelletier


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
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                  FORM 10-KSB/A
                                 Amendment No. 1
(MARK ONE)

[X]  ANNUAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE  SECURITIES  EXCHANGE ACT OF
     1934

                    For the Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2003

[ ]  TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES  EXCHANGE ACT
     OF 1934

       For the transition period from _______________ to ________________

                         Commission File Number 0-23339

                            US GLOBAL AEROSPACE, INC.
                 (Name of Small Business Issuer in its charter)

               Delaware                                  13-3720542
     ----------------------------          ------------------------------------
     (State or other jurisdiction          (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
   of incorporation or organization)

                      2533 North Carson Street, Suite 5107
                            Carson City, Nevada 89706
               (Address of principal executive offices)(Zip code)

Issuer's telephone number, including area code:  (775) 841-3246

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

    Title of each class        Name of each exchange on which each is registered
    -------------------        -------------------------------------------------
          None                                     None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

                          Common Stock, $ .01 par value
                          -----------------------------
                                (Title of class)


                       DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

   None

   Transition Small Business Disclosure Format:   Yes       No    X
                                                      -----     -----




<PAGE>



                                EXPLANATORY NOTE

         This  Amendment  No. 1  ("Amendment  No. 1") to the Annual Report of US
Global  Aerospace,  Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003
amends the Form 10-KSB by adding to it two  exhibits  included  on the  original
Exhibit List but not included in the original filing (exhibits 10.8 and 10.9).


                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the  requirements  of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this amendment to its Form 10-KSB to
be signed on its behalf by the  undersigned,  thereunto duly  authorized on July
15, 2003.

                               US GLOBAL AEROSPACE, INC.



                               By: /s/ John Robinson
                                  -----------------------------------------
                                    John Robinson, Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Robert Peter A., Jr., et al. Francine A. et al., Appellants, v Graham-Windham, Respondent. Lenore Gittis, Law Guardian.

Orders, Family Court of the State of New York, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on October 24, 1983, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Application by appellant Francine A.’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant Francine A.’s counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ross, Lynch, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         606,021
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  529,061
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,315,310
<PP&E>                                         71,114
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,008,019
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,479,069
<BONDS>                                        1,183,993
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,344,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,008,019
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               94,695
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               68,665
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                26,030
<INCOME-TAX>                                   5,899
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            20,131
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   20,131
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
#### GUANGWEI SUN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-73348.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 22, 2011.

Guangwei Sun, San Gabriel, CA, pro se.

Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, OIL, Kevin James Conway, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Guangwei Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the *961Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *See Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that, even if credible, Sun failed to establish past persecution because her detention and physical mistreatment did not rise to the level of persecution. *See id.*at 1019-21 (detention, beating and interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution by Chinese police on account of unsanctioned religious practice). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Sun failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See id.*at 1022. Accordingly, Sun’s asylum claim fails.

Because Sun did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, her claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. *See Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir.2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Sun failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured if returned to China. *See Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 104 

Designating September 2011 as ‘‘Campus Fire Safety Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 17, 2011 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. SANDERS, and 

Mr. MENENDEZ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

AUGUST 2, 2011 

Committee discharged; considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating September 2011 as ‘‘Campus Fire Safety 

Month’’. 

Whereas, each year, States across the Nation formally designate September as Campus Fire Safety Month; 

Whereas, since January 2000, at least 143 people, including 

students, parents, and children have died in campus-related fires; 

Whereas 85 percent of those deaths occurred in off-campus 

residences; 

Whereas a majority of college students in the United States 

live in off-campus residences; 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 104 ATS 

Whereas a number of fatal fires have occurred in buildings 

in which the fire safety systems had been compromised 

or disabled by the occupants; 

Whereas automatic fire alarm systems provide the early 

warning of a fire that is necessary for occupants and the 

fire department to take appropriate action; 

Whereas automatic fire sprinkler systems are a highly effective method of controlling or extinguishing a fire in its 

early stages, protecting the lives of the building’s occupants; 

Whereas many college students live in off-campus residences, 

fraternity and sorority housing, and residence halls that 

are not adequately protected with automatic fire sprinkler 

systems and automatic fire alarm systems; 

Whereas fire safety education is an effective method of reducing the occurrence of fires and reducing the resulting loss 

of life and property damage; 

Whereas college students do not routinely receive effective 

fire safety education during their time in college; 

Whereas it is vital to educate young people in the United 

States about the importance of fire safety to help ensure 

fire-safe behavior by young people during their college 

years and beyond; and 

Whereas, by developing a generation of fire-safe adults, future loss of life from fires may be significantly reduced: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates September 2011 as ‘‘Campus 

3 Fire Safety Month’’; and 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

SRES 104 ATS 

1 (2) encourages administrators of institutions of 

2 higher education and municipalities across the coun3 try— 

4 (A) to provide educational programs to all 

5 students during September and throughout the 

6 school year; 

7 (B) to evaluate the level of fire safety 

8 being provided in both on- and off-campus stu9 dent housing; and 

10 (C) to ensure fire-safe living environments 

11 through fire safety education, installation of fire 

12 suppression and detection systems, and the de13 velopment and enforcement of applicable codes 

14 relating to fire safety. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.1

CEO/CFO Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350)

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation, respectively, certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation and subsidiary at the dates and for the periods indicated.

|                  |                                                                   |                            | 
|----------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------- | 
|November 12, 2002 |                                                                   | /s/ ROBERT H. GILLIAM, JR. | 
|                  |                                                                   |                            | 
|Date              | Robert H. Gilliam, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer     |                           
|                  |                                                                   |                           
|                  |                                                                   |                           
|November 12, 2002 |                                                                   | /s/ BRYAN M. LEMLEY        | 
|                  |                                                                   |                            | 
|Date              | Bryan M. Lemley, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
#### NORA TUA AND ALFRED TUA, HER HUSBAND, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. MODERN HOMES, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued November 21, 1960

Decided December 5, 1960.

*Mr. Edmond J. Dwyer*argued the cause for the appellant.

*Mr. Newton H. Boemer*argued the cause for the respondents *(Messrs. Nussman &*Eapian, attorneys).

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of Judge Price in the court below.

Mr. Justice Hall and Mr. Justice Sohettino vote to reverse the judgment for the reasons expressed in the minority opinion of Judge Eoley.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weintbaub:, and Justices Jacobs, Ebancis and Pboctob — 4.

*For reversal*— Justices Hall and *Sohettino*— •2.
#### In re FITZGERALD.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 4, 1907.)

In the matter of Thomas W. Fitzgerald, etc.

PER CURIAM.

Títere has been no defense on the merits interposed to this application. The charges against the respondent, as found by the referee, have been fully established, and demonstrate his utter unfitness for office. The referee’s report is confirmed, and the respondent removed from the office of justice of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York for the Second Division and the office of attorney and counsellor.
January 29, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RICHARD G. ORTEGA, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00768-CV V.

CACH, LLC, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, CACH, LLC, 

signed August 23, 2011, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have 

inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We therefore order the 

judgment of the court below REVERSED and REMAND the cause for 

proceedings in accordance with the court’s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellee, CACH, LLC.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4208



# 
T RACY G LENN J ACKSON ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-00-192) Submitted: September 28, 2001 Decided: November 5, 2001 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSELJames B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Paul A. Weinman, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Tracy Glenn Jackson appeals his conviction for robbing a postal employee of money belonging to the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2114(a) (West 2000). Jackson’s counsel filed a briefasserting that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. In addition, Jackson filed a motion to file a pro se supplemental brief to assert claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.After a thorough review of the trial transcript, we find that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos , 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). We thereforefind that the district court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. Jackson claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel because, inter alia, counsel advised him to be clean-shaven for trial, which altered his normal appearance and made him more closely resemble the composite drawings of the robbery suspect, and failed to interview prosecution or defense witnesses. Claims of ineffective assistance generally are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record conclusively shows that counsel was ineffective. United States v. King , 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997). Consequently, although we grant Jackson’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief, we decline to consider Jackson’s ineffective assistance claims because wefind that the record does not conclusively show that counsel was ineffective. We affirm Jackson’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 2 U NITED S TATES v. J ACKSONmaterials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. J ACKSON