alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P. C., Appellant, v New York Turkey Corporation, Defendant, and Eli Barzvi, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Blyn, J.), entered November 29,1984, which denied plaintiff’s motion to confirm the report of the referee to the extent that it found service on the individual defendant Barzvi proper, and which vacated an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Sandifer, J.), dated September 30, 1983, which had directed an inquest and assessment of damages, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, the referee’s report confirmed, and the order directing an inquest and assessment of damages reinstated, with costs and disbursements.

Plaintiff’s process server attempted to serve the individual defendant, Barzvi, at his place of business. When he arrived outside the plant, he was stopped by a security guard who *94refused to allow access to either the plant itself or to Barzvi’s office. When the process server informed the security guard that he had legal papers to serve upon the defendant and asked “who is in charge of taking service of papers”, the security guard responded “I am”. Based thereon, the process server served the security guard and later that day mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to Barzvi’s home.

After hearing the uncontradicted testimony of the process server, Special Referee Colgan issued a report finding the service upon the individual defendant to be proper pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). While Special Term rejected this report, we would confirm it.

The security officer was certainly a “person of suitable age and discretion” to whom service could be delivered pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), especially in view of the fact that he refused to permit the process server access to the defendant’s office and then informed him that he could accept service of legal papers on defendant’s behalf. *(See, Braun v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Center,*57 NY2d 909; *duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v Chen,*41 NY2d 794.)

Since we now hold jurisdiction to be proper, the inquest and assessment of damages should be reinstated. The individual defendant has neither offered a reasonable excuse for his failure to answer the complaint nor has he demonstrated a meritorious defense to the underlying action. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Bloom, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.
exhibit10-6.htm


Convertible Promissory Note





December 16, 2009 US$141,000









TO:           Tiger Ventures Group, Ltd. of 35 New Road, Belize City, Belize (the “Creditor”)





WHEARAS:






	
A.
	
Endeavor Explorations Inc is indebted to the Creditor in the amount of $133,500 for the aggregate funds that the Creditor previously advanced to Endeavor;









	
B.
	
as consideration for a further advance of $7,500, Endeavor agrees to combine all previous indebtedness into this Note payable pursuant to the terms and conditions provided in this Note;








Endeavor Explorations Inc. of 980 Cooperage Way, Suite 601, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 0C3 (“Endeavor”), promises to pay to the Creditor, at the address
specified above, the principal amount specified below (the “Principal”).





The following are the terms and conditions of the Note:






	
  
	
1.
	
Principal amount:
	
$141,000 due and payable from Endeavor to the Creditor.









	
  
	
2.
	
Maturity date:
	
This Note will be payable on demand.









	
  
	
3.
	
Interest:
	
No interest will accrue on the outstanding amount.









	
  
	
4.
	
Conversion:
	
At any time prior to the date that the Principal is repaid, the Creditor, at its sole option, may convert a portion or all of the Principal outstanding into shares of common stock in the capital stock of Endeavor (the “Shares”).  Each $0.05 of Principal outstanding may be converted into one Share.









	
  
	
5.
	
Currency:
	
All funds and dollar amounts referred to in this Note are in the lawful currency of the United States of America.









	
  
	
6.
	
Jurisdiction:
	
This Note will be interpreted in accordance with the laws in effect from time to time in the Province of British Columbia.









	
  
	
7.
	
Resale Restrictions:
	
If the Creditor chooses to convert the Principal into Shares pursuant to paragraph 4, the Creditor agrees and acknowledges that it will comply with all securities laws relating to resale restrictions.








IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Promissory Note has been executed as of the day and year first above written.









Endeavor Explorations Inc.





Per:           /s/ Belkis Jimenez Rivero

_______________________________

Belkis Jimenez Rivero

CEO & President
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 144 (Friday, July 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41028-41029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16324]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers


Withdrawal of the Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement the Lower Santa Cruz River Flood Risk Management 
Feasibility Study, Pinal County, Arizona

AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of intent; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District is 
notifying interested parties that it has withdrawn the notice of intent 
(NOI) to develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 
proposed Lower Santa Cruz River Flood Risk Management Feasibility 
Study. The original NOI to prepare a EIS was published in the Federal 
Register on November 9, 2015. The proposed Lower Santa Cruz River Flood 
Risk Management Feasibility Study is being converted to a Continuing 
Authority Program (CAP) study.

DATES: The notice of intent to prepare an EIS published in the Federal 
Register on November 9, 2015 (80 FR 69201), is withdrawn as of July 30, 
2021.

ADDRESSES: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 
Environmental Resources Branch, (CESPL-PDR), 915 Wilshire Boulevard, 
Los Angeles, CA 90017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the withdrawal of 
this NOI should be addressed to Mr. Kenneth Wong, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b202e25252e3f23653c24252c0b3e382a282e652a39263265262227"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="553e303b3b30213d7b223a3b321520263436307b3427382c7b383c39">[email protected]</span></a>, (213) 452-3847.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles 
District, in partnership with the Pinal County Flood Control District, 
intended to prepare an Integrated Feasibility Report and EIS for the 
Lower Santa Cruz River Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study.
    The study's purpose is to evaluate methods for minimizing flood 
risks along the Lower Santa Cruz River and its major tributaries within 
an approximately 1,400 square mile study

[[Page 41029]]

area in Pinal County, Arizona. After the NOI's publication, the 
geographic scope of the study was reduced such that the study will be 
converted to a CAP Section 205 study which address Flood Risk 
Management projects of limited size, cost, and complexity.

Antoinette R. Gant,
Colonel, U.S. Army, Division Commander.
[FR Doc. 2021-16324 Filed 7-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kasseem Harris, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Same memorandum as in *People v Boyd*(116 AD2d 978). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mark, J. — robbery, second degree, two counts.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.
Exhibit 12.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;
 b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;
 c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the companys disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on
such evaluation; and
 d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the companys
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the companys internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/    KAZUTO TSUBOUCHIKazuto TsubouchiExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,896
<ALLOWANCES>                                       871
<INVENTORY>                                     29,171
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,202
<PP&E>                                          94,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 206,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,962
<BONDS>                                        154,250
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   206,699
<SALES>                                         50,986
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,986
<CGS>                                           40,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,238
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (8)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    75
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,199
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,366)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,366)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,366)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.9 
  

			
	 


	  	
		  	 Avaya Inc.

		  	 211 Mt. Airy Road

		  	Basking Ridge, NJ 07920

 October 12, 2009 
 Kevin J. Kennedy 
 President and CEO 
 Avaya Inc. 
 211 Mt. Airy Road 
 Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 
 Re: Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement 
 Dear Kevin: 
 This
letter-agreement is to confirm our understanding regarding your relocation and housing expenses set forth in section 1.6 of your Executive Employment Agreement (“Agreement”), dated November 26, 2008. As you know, section 9(a) of the
Agreement provides that any amendments must be in writing, approved by the Board of Directors of Sierra Holdings Corp., and signed by a duly authorized officer of Sierra Holdings Corp and you. This letter-agreement shall serve as an amendment
pursuant to section 9(a). 
 Section 1.6, with respect to the Executive Relocation Plan (including the provision for
temporary housing allowance), is hereby amended as follows: 
 1. Avaya has paid or shall pay you the sum of Nine
Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($943,333.00), pursuant to the terms of the Executive Relocation Plan and in exchange for your assigning all rights and title to your property located at 20048 Lower Skylands Drive,
Groveland, California. 95321 (“California House”), to Avaya or its designee. You agree to cooperate in the transfer of this property. 
 2. Avaya has paid or shall pay you the sum of Two Hundred Ninety-Six Thousand Dollars ($296,000.00),
which amount includes a gross up for applicable taxes, in settlement of its relocation obligations as it relates to your property located at 2122 4Th Avenue, Spring Lake, New Jersey 07762 (“Spring Lake House”), and in lieu of your selling this house.








 3. Avaya has paid or shall pay you the sum of Eighty-Nine Thousand Six
Hundred Dollars ($89,600.00), which amount includes a gross up for applicable taxes, for temporary relocation benefits while you reside in a rental property for a period of time up to and including October 22, 2009, as you renovate your Spring
Lake House to serve as your permanent residence. 
 I believe this fully sets forth our understanding on these matters. Kindly
indicate your acceptance of these terms by signing below and returning this letter-agreement to me at your earliest convenience. 
 Thank you
for your cooperation in this matter. 
 Very Truly Yours, 
 Pamela F. Craven 
 By signing below, the parties agree and accept that this
letter-agreement is an effective amendment in accordance with section 9(a) of the Agreement. 
  

			
	 /s/    PAMELA F.
CRAVEN        
 For Sierra Holdings Corp.
	  	 10-16-09
 Date

		
	 /s/    PAMELA F.
CRAVEN        
 For Avaya Inc.
	  	 10-16-09
 Date

		
	 /s/    KEVIN J.
KENNEDY        
 Kevin J. Kennedy
 President and CEO
 Avaya Inc.
	  	 10-14-09
 Date


  

 2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS JOHNSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP

INC,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 17

- 35186

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv

- 00766

- RSL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 16, 2018 **

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Douglas Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing as a discovery sanction his action alleging federal claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion

, Valley

Eng’rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co. , 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th C ir. 1998), and we

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 35186

affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Johnson’s action

as a discovery sanction after first impos ing a less drastic sanction and warn ing that

noncompliance with discovery orders would result in dismissal. See id. (setting

forth factors to be considered before dismissing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b))

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Johnson’s request

to appoint new counsel

. See Palmer v. Valdez , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009)

(setting forth standard of review and the “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

We decline to exercise our discretion to review the denial of Johnson’s

motion for summary judgment on his ERISA claim. See Jones

- Hamilton C o. v.

Beazer Materials & Servs, Inc. , 973 F.2d 688, 694 n.2 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining

exception under which the court may exercise its discretion to review a denial of

summary judgment, which ordinarily is not appealable).

We reject as without merit Jo hnson’s contentions that the district court

sabotaged or retaliated against him by, among other things, imposing a monetary

sanction, o r erred by failing to conduct a hearing on his former counsel’s motion to

withdraw.

We do not consider matters not spec ifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief

, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias

,3 17

- 35186

921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.
Abatement Order filed November 20, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00888

- CR

____________ THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellant

V.
GABRIEL SERNA GARCIA , Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 17

- DCR

- 079362

ABATEMENT ORDER
The State challenges the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to suppress. Although the State requested findings of fact and conclusions of law,
none have been filed. When the losing party on a motio n to suppress requests findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court is required to make them. State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696, 698

– 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of

fact an d conclusions of law on the granting of appellee’s motion to suppress and have a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of
this c ourt within thirty days of the date of this order

. The appeal is abated, treated as a close d case, and removed from this c ourt’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this c ourt’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this c ourt. The c ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate th e appeal filed by either party.

PER CURIAM
#### Denisia Frey, Appellant, v New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 8] —

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered May 18, 2011, which denied the petition to annul respondent New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development’s (HPD) determination, dated June 15, 2010, terminating petitioner’s Section 8 rent subsidy on the ground that she had misrepresented her household income on recertification applications, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The termination of petitioner’s Section 8 rent subsidy was not “so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness” *(see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County,*34 NY2d 222, 233 [1974] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *Matter of Alarape v New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev.,*55 AD3d 316 [2008], *lv denied*12 NY3d 801 [2009]).

Petitioner failed to preserve her argument that the termination of her Section 8 rent subsidy was contrary to HPD’s administrative plan, as she never asserted this claim at the agency level *(see Matter of Melendez v Cestero,*79 AD3d 603, 603 [2010]). As an alternative holding, we conclude that HPD’s *614determination was in accordance with the administrative plan, since the documents petitioner submitted in connection with the pretermination conference confirmed that she did not comply with the requirement to report all household income *(id.*at 603-604). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Renwick, DeGrasse and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 31258(U).]
----

Information procedure — Technical rules

(2005/C 21/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services. (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37; OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p.18).

Notifications of draft national technical rules received by the Commission

The Commission draws attention to the judgement delivered on 30 April 1996 in the ‘CIA Security’ case (C-194/94 — ECR I, p. 2201), in which the Court of Justice ruled that Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34/EC (formerly 83/189/EEC) are to be interpreted as meaning that individuals may rely on them before national courts which must decline to apply a national technical regulation which has not been notified in accordance with the Directive.

This judgement confirms the Commission's communication of 1 October 1986 (OJ C 245, 1.10.1986, p.4).

Accordingly, breach of the obligation to notify renders the technical regulations concerned inapplicable, and consequently unenforceable against individuals.

For more information on the notification procedure, please write to:

Also consult the website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tris/

If you require any further information on these notifications, please contact the national departments listed below:

LIST OF NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DIRECTIVE 98/34/EC

BELGIUM

CZECH REPUBLIC

DENMARK

GERMANY

ESTONIA

GREECE

SPAIN

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALY

CYPRUS

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

LUXEMBURG

HUNGARY

MALTA

NETHERLANDS

AUSTRIA

POLAND

PORTUGAL

SLOVENIA

SLOVAKIA

FINLAND

SWEDEN

UNITED KINGDOM

EFTA - ESA

TURKEY

----

(1)  Year - registration number - Member State of origin.

(2)  Period during which the draft may not be adopted.

(3)  No standstill period since the Commission accepts the grounds of urgent adoption invoked by the notifying Member State.

(4)  No standstill period since the measure concerns technical specifications or other requirements or rules on services linked to fiscal or financial measures, pursuant to the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC.

(5)  Information procedure closed.

----