alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darrel Lawrence, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Di Tucci, J.), rendered March 12, 1984, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing *665sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Leahy, J.), of defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

The record discloses that the statements made by defendant while in custody after his arrest were spontaneous and were not made in response to any police interrogation. The record establishes that the police did not question defendant about the attempted burglary or engage in any conduct reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from him *(see, Rhode Is. v Innis,*446 US 291; *People v Ferro,*63 NY2d 316, *cert denied*— US —, 105 S Ct 2700; *People v Bryant,*59 NY2d 786). Defendant’s statements were therefore admissible. We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.
#### ERIE COUNTY, Respondent, v. HAUENSTEIN, Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 9, 1907.)

Action by the county of Erie against Oscar H. Hauenstein, as administrator, etc., impleaded with others.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### Hayes *v.*Carrollton Bank.

June 25, 1915.

The description of this case, and the names of counsel, are the same as in the next preceding case.

Atkinson, J.

There being no error of law complained of, and the evidence being sufficient to support the verdict, the judgment refusing a new trial is *Affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20-0504

CRAZY CARLS,INC.,d/b/a AUTO RESOURCE,

Plaintiffand Appellee, v. SANDRA JORGENSEN,

Defendant and Appellant. 

# FILE MAR 0 9 2021

Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Appellee Crazy Carls, Inc., d/b/a Auto Resource,has filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground Appellant Sandra Jorgensen, a self-represented litigant,did not file her opening briefin a timely manner. Jorgensen has responded. Crazy Carls, Inc. notes that Jorgensen's opening brief was due on Monday, February 1, 2021, following receipt of the last transcript on December 31, 2020. M.R. App.P. 13(1): Crazy Carls, Inc.,points out that Jorgensen did not move this Court for an extension of time, and that, as of February 10, 2021, Jorgensen had not filed her brief. M.R.App.P. 13(3). After the motion to dismiss was filed, Jorgenson filed, on February 22, 2021, a document titled "Informal Appeal Brief" which references proceedings in the "Lower Courr and appears to be arguments in support ofan appeal. We deem the document to be her appellate brief. On the same day, Jorgensen also filed a document titled "Affidavit of Truth in Verification in Opposition,"which,despite its denomination,is not notarized. See § 1-5-602(13), MCA. Jorgensen states that her brief was timely "filer on January 29, 2021,but that "the mails apparently are so messed up that it was notreceived by the court, nor the other side (or so they report)." However, the Clerk of the Supreme Court did not receive any document from Jorgenson for filing by January 29, 2021, as Jorgenson claims, or by the due date of her 03/09/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0504

### brief. This was Jorgenson's responsibility,and the problem does not appear to lie with the

United States Postal Service. At the least, Jorgenson should have moved for an extension oftime for filing ofher brief,prior to the expiration ofthe time granted under the Rules of Appellate Procedure. While "[i]t is reasonable to expect all litigants, including those acting pro se, to adhere to the procedural rules,"FirstBank (NA.)-Billings v. Heidema,219 Mont.373,376, 711 P.2d 1384, 1386 (1986),this Court gives some latitude to self-represented litigants as long as it does not prejudice the other party. Heidema,219 Mont.at 376,711 P.2d at 1386. We caution Jorgensen that she should not misrepresent any fact or action to this Court,and must comply with the Appellate Rules. However,we conclude that dismissal ofthe appeal would be an overly harsh sanction at this juncture. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk ofthe Supreme Court is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel ofrecord and to Sandra Jorgensen personally. DATED this — ay ofMarch,2021.

2 /# 5" ChiefJustice

Justices
#### STARR v. SPINGARN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Michael Starr against Samuel R. Spingarn.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
#### In the Matter of Kevin D. Winters, Respondent, v Ewa Rokoszak et al., Appellants.

[943 NYS2d 122]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), dated February 18, 2011, which denied the application of Ewa Rokoszak and Czeslaw Zurawski pursuant to CPLR 325 and 326 to remove related summary proceedings, inter alia, to recover possession of real property and damages for use and occupancy nonpayment pending in the City Court of the City of Yonkers, to the Supreme Court, Westchester County.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ application to remove related summary proceedings pending in the City Court of the City of Yonkers, to the Supreme Court, *1010Westchester County. Removal would not have been in the interest of the proper administration of justice because the appellants’ application was made on the eve of trial *(see Morrissey v Morrissey,*122 AD2d 840 [1986]), and the City Court, which has jurisdiction over summary proceedings to recover possession of residential premises, is the preferred forum for the resolution of landlord-tenant disputes *(see*UCCA 203 [a] [8]; *see generally Post v 120 E. End Ave. Corp.,*62 NY2d 19, 28 [1984]).

The appellants’ contentions regarding the propriety of an order of the City Court of the City of Yonkers which dismissed the counterclaims they asserted in the summary proceedings are not properly before this Court on appeal from the Supreme Court’s order denying their application for removal. Balkin, J.E, Eng, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
#### MERRITT, Appellant, v. PIERCE, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Madison Merritt against John Pierce.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cornelius James KELLY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-31151

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 21, 2011.

Camille Ann Domingue, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Daniel J. McCoy, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Angela Barbera Odinet, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Cornelius James Kelly has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Kelly has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief *115and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2. Counsel’s alternative motion for leave to withdraw is DENIED as moot.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                              11
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      176
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4
<INVENTORY>                                        117
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   336
<PP&E>                                             402
<DEPRECIATION>                                     230
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              149
<BONDS>                                            810
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        (322)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       689
<SALES>                                            810
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   810
<CGS>                                              574
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      574
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  45
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (23)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (1)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (22)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (22)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.37)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 10.4

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO

                GLOBAL RESOURCE CORPORATION COMMON STOCK WARRANTS

                                 CERTIFICATE #1



         WHEREAS, Global Resource Corporation (the "Corporation") issued Common
Stock Warrants, Certificate #1, dated ____, 2006 to Mobilestream Oil, Inc. (the
"Warrants");

         WHEREAS, the Warrants have an expiration date of December 31, 2008 and
the Corporation desires to extend the expiration date until one hundred twenty
days after the Warrants and the Common Stock issuable upon exercise thereof are
registered under the Securities Act of 1933 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission; and

         WHEREAS, the Corporation now desires to further amend the Warrants in
certain respects as set forth below;

         NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and among the parties hereto, intending
to be legally bound, that the Warrants are amended as follows:

         1. The defined term "Expiration Date" contained in the preamble of the
Warrants are amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


                  "Expiration Date" shall mean the date which is one hundred
                  twenty days after the date of effectiveness of the
                  registration of these Warrants and the Common Stock to be
                  issued upon exercise of these Warrants under the Securities
                  Act of 1993 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

         2. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the Warrants shall
continue in full force and effect.



<PAGE>


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this First
Amendment to Global Resource Corporation Common Stock Warrants as of this 20th
day of November, 2008.

                                    GLOBAL RESOURCE CORPORATION

                                    By:__________________________________
                                    Name:  Eric Swain
                                    Title:  Chief Executive Officer

                                    By:__________________________________
                                    Name: Jeffrey J. Andrews
                                    Title: Secretary

COUNTERSIGNED BY:                   Olde Monmouth Stock Transfer Co., Inc.
                                    200 Memorial Parkway,
                                    Atlantic Highlands, NJ 07716
IA

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1161

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 11, 1997

Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

AN ACT

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize

appropriations for refugee and entrant assistance for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1161 RFH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR

2 REFUGEE AND ENTRANT ASSISTANCE.

3 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

4 414(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

5 1524(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘fiscal year 1995, fiscal

6 year 1996, and fiscal year 1997’’ and inserting ‘‘each of

7 fiscal years 1998 and 1999’’.

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

9 subsection (a) shall take effect October 1, 1997.

Passed the Senate September 10, 1997.

Attest: GARY SISCO,

Secretary.
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 77 Filed: 07/18/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:474
Case: 1:03-cv-06472 Document #: 77 Filed: 07/18/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:475
Case: 1:02-cv-00256 Document #: 200 Filed: 07/15/04 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1850
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
 Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Databases
                        Alfalfa Transcription Factor Database
                                    iPhyClassifier - Phytoplasma Sequence ClassificationSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory People Rosemarie Hammond





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Con Baker
- Wei Wei
- Rosemarie Hammond
- Robert Davis
- John Hartung
- Ing Ming Lee
- Lev Nemchinov
- Anna Smigocki
- Yan Zhao
- Hammond Main Page
- Pospiviroids and viroid/host interactions
- Viruses
- Kovalskaya Research Projects
- Natilla Research Projects
- ARS New Articles

Kovalskaya Research Projectsheadline bar


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
ex10-2.htm


    
      
         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    EXHIBIT
10.2

    


    


    FIRST
AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

    


    


    This
First Amendment (the “Amendment”), dated as of November 16, 2008, is to that
certain Employment Agreement (the “Employment Agreement”), dated as of June 10
2008, between Shuffle Master, Inc. (“the Company”) and David Lopez
(“Employee”).  All capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not
otherwise defined herein shall have the same meaning as in the Employment
Agreement.

    


    For good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Company and Employee hereby agree as follows:

    


    1.           As
a result of Employee’s performance, the Company is promoting the Employee, and,
effective immediately, his title will be Executive Vice President, reporting to
the Chief Executive Officer or his designee. Employee shall perform the duties
of that position as assigned by the Chief Executive Officer, which, as of the
date hereof (but subject to change), shall include, without limitation,
overseeing the Company’s sales, product management and operations
functions.

    


    2.           Except
as expressly amended hereby, the Employment Agreement, as amended hereby, is
hereby confirmed and ratified by the parties as being and remaining in full
force and effect, according to its terms and conditions, and without any further
amendments or modifications.

    


    


    


    
      	
              EMPLOYER:

            	 
      	
              EMPLOYEE:

            
	
               

              SHUFFLE
      MASTER, INC.

            	 
      	
               

              DAVID
      LOPEZ

            
	
               

               

              BY:   /s/ Mark L.
      Yoseloff

            	 
      	
               

               

              BY:   /s/ David
      Lopez

            
	
               

              ITS:  Chief Executive
      Officer

            	 
      	
               

              ITS:  Executive Vice
      President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Reyes, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), rendered May 8, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

A review of the record indicates that the People disproved the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Reed,*40 NY2d 204). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), the record establishes that following the first confrontation between the parties, defendant retreated to his apartment and the decedent did not follow him. Thereafter, defendant returned to the scene of the prior incident carrying a baseball bat and a knife. Even assuming at this point that *603defendant reasonably believed that the decedent was about to use deadly force against him, he was obligated to withdraw from the encounter rather than use deadly force himself since he had the ability to retreat in complete safety *(see, People v Mungin,*106 AD2d 519; *People v Young,*99 AD2d 791). Instead, defendant chose to remain and resort to more than necessary force to allegedly defend himself, and this second altercation resulted in the stabbing death of the decedent. On these facts, the defense of justification was not available to defendant *(see,*Penal Law § 35.15 [2]).

Defendant claims that the Trial Judge’s consideration of evidence regarding alleged threats made by defendant’s brother to a prosecution witness precluded the Judge from conducting a fair and impartial trial. This assertion is without merit. A Judge is deemed uniquely capable of distinguishing those issues properly presented to him from those not, and is presumed, absent a showing of prejudice, to have considered only the competent evidence adduced at trial in reaching the verdict *(see, People v Lombardi,*76 AD2d 891). Here, the evidence was excluded from use at trial, the record reveals no partiality on the part of the Judge *(see,*Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 [C] [1]), and defendant has made no showing of prejudice that would warrant reversal of the conviction *(see, People v Lombardi, supra).*Additionally, it is clear that the Judge was under no statutory obligation to disqualify himself *(see,*Judiciary Law § 14). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 392 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 392

 Urging the Republic of Turkey to safeguard its Christian heritage and 
                to return confiscated church properties.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 2012

Mr. Brown of Massachusetts (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Kirk) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                          on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Urging the Republic of Turkey to safeguard its Christian heritage and 
                to return confiscated church properties.

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of 
State, in all official contacts with officials and representatives of 
the Government of Turkey, should emphasize that the Government of 
Turkey should--
            (1) end all forms of religious discrimination;
            (2) allow the rightful church and lay owners of Christian 
        church properties, without hindrance or restriction, to 
        organize and administer prayer services, religious education, 
        clerical training, appointments, and succession, religious 
        community gatherings, social services, including ministry to 
        the needs of the poor and infirm, and other religious 
        activities;
            (3) return to their rightful owners all Christian churches 
        and other places of worship, monasteries, schools, hospitals, 
        monuments, relics, holy sites, and other religious properties, 
        including movable properties, such as artwork, manuscripts, 
        vestments, vessels, and other artifacts; and
            (4) allow the rightful Christian church and lay owners of 
        Christian church properties, without hindrance or restriction, 
        to preserve, reconstruct, and repair, as they see fit, all 
        Christian churches and other places of worship, monasteries, 
        schools, hospitals, monuments, relics, holy sites, and other 
        religious properties within Turkey.
                                 <all>
```