alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 10





EXHIBIT 10.58




Description of Oral Extension-D. Richard Promissory Note, One




Summary of Terms of the Orally Agreed upon Extension to following Simple Promissory Note (with corresponding exhibit number of original note) under which Registrant is the Borrower. No periodic payments are required and principal and interest are due on the extended due date.







	Original

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Note

	 
	 
	Original

	Oral

	 
	Annual


	Exhibit

	 
	Loan

	Due

	Extension

	 
	%


	Number

	Lender

	Date

	Date

	Date

	Principal

	Rate


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	10.29

	D. Richard

	08/07/2008

	10/07/2008

	12/31/2008

	$20,000.00

	10%
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1306

To prohibit the conveyance of real property at Long Beach Naval Station,

California, to China Ocean Shipping Company.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 22, 1997

Mr. INHOFE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To prohibit the conveyance of real property at Long Beach

Naval Station, California, to China Ocean Shipping Company.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY

4 AT LONG BEACH NAVAL STATION, CALIFOR5 NIA, TO CHINA OCEAN SHIPPING COMPANY.

6 (a) PROHIBITION AGAINST DIRECT CONVEYANCE.—

7 In disposing of real property in connection with the closure

8 of Long Beach Naval Station, California, under the provi9 sions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act

10 of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510;
2

•S 1306 IS

1 10 U.S.C. 2687 note), the Secretary of Defense may not

2 convey any portion of the property (whether by sale, lease,

3 or other method) to China Ocean Shipping Company, or

4 any successor entity to the company.

5 (b) PROHIBITION AGAINST INDIRECT CONVEY6 ANCE.—The Secretary shall impose as a condition on each

7 conveyance of real property located at Long Beach Naval

8 Station the requirement that the property may not be sub9 sequently conveyed (whether by sale, lease, or other meth10 od) to China Ocean Shipping Company, or any successor

11 entity to the company.

12 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—If the Secretary de13 termines at any time that real property located at Long

14 Beach Naval Station and conveyed under the provisions

15 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990

16 has been conveyed to China Ocean Shipping Company (or

17 any successor entity to the company) in violation of sub18 section (b), or is otherwise being used by China Ocean

19 Shipping Company (or any successor entity to the com20 pany) in violation of such subsection, all right, title, and

21 interest in and to the property shall revert to the United

22 States, and the United States shall have the right of im23 mediate entry thereon.

Æ
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T Sept. 28, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 9

- 1 1 8 9 0 N o n - A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 7

- 0 0 1 2 9

- C R

- 1

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v e r s u s

P A T R I C K L O R E N Z O D A W S O N , a

. k

. a

. B l a c k ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f G e o r g i a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( S e p t e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e T J O F L A T , E D M O N D S O N a n d H I L L , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :C h r i s t o p h e r J

. H u d s o n , a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o r P a t r i c k L o r e n z o D a w s o n i n

t h i s d i r e c t c r i m i n a l a p p e a l , h a s f i l e d a m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w f r o m f u r t h e r

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , s u p p o r t e d b y a b r i e f p r e p a r e d p u r s u a n t t o A n d e r s v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6

U

. S

. 7 3 8 , 8 7 S

. C t

. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L

. E d

. 2 d 4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e

e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e r e l a t i v e m e r i t o f t h e a p p e a l i s

c o r r e c t

. B e c a u s e i n d e p e n d e n t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s n o a r g u a b l e i s s u e s

o f m e r i t , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , a n d D a w s o n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s

a n d s e n t e n c e s a r e A F F I R M E D

.

2
#### Poah One Acquisition Holdings V Limited, Respondent, v Gilbert Richard Armenta et al., Appellants.

[946 NYS2d 571]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered October 8, 2010, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of standing and failure to state a cause of action, and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint only as to liability as against defendant Armenta, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgment as against Armenta by submitting the guaranty executed by him and an affidavit of nonpayment *(see Bank of Am., N.A. v Solow,*59 AD3d 304, 304-305 [2009], *lv dismissed*12 NY3d 877 [2009]). Plaintiff appropriately moved based on the absolute and unconditional guaranty, which expressly waived demand or presentment, and is “an instrument for the payment of money only” within the meaning of CPLR 3213 *(see European Am. Bank v Competition Motors,*182 AD2d 67, 71 [1992]). Defendant’s contention that plaintiff did not include an executed copy of the 2008 reaffirmation of the guaranty is insufficient to raise an issue of fact in light of the language of the 2007 executed guaranty. Moreover, defendant’s affidavit is equivocal as to his recollection of the execution of the 2008 document. Concur— Tom, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Román, JJ.
#### Tsegai HAILE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee, and St. Joseph Health System Sonoma County, Defendant.

No. 10-15904.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 25, 2011.

*973Tsegai Haile, Santa Rosa, CA, pro se.

Christopher Ward, Foley *&*Lardner, LLP, Chicago, IL, Kevin Francis Woodall, Woodall Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

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 **

Tsegai Haile appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment following a bench and jury trial in his employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. *Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med.,*363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir.2004). We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial. *Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.,*481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir.2007) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a)); *Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc.,*452 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2006) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Haile’s Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“COBRA”) claim because Haile failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital complied with COBRA’s notification provision. *See*29 U.S.C. § § 1163 (defining “qualifying event”), 1166(a) (setting forth notice requirements).

We cannot review Haile’s contentions that require examination of oral proceedings in the district court because Haile failed to include the relevant transcripts in the record on appeal as required by Fed. R.App. P. 10(b). *See Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade,*924 F.2d 167, 169-70 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (pro se appellant failed to provide relevant transcripts).

To the extent that consideration of the district court’s denial of Haile’s motion for a new trial does not require review of a transcript, the district court did not abuse its discretion because Haile failed to show grounds warranting such relief. *See Mol-ski,*481 F.3d at 729 (setting forth grounds for a new trial under Rule 59(a)); *Lat-shaw,*452 F.3d at 1101-02 (plaintiff was not entitled to relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) on the basis of her attorney’s alleged misconduct).

Haile’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Haile’s “Motion to Augment Opening Brief and Rebuttal to J. Chesney’s Argument” is granted to the extent that it seeks to supplement the opening brief and is otherwise denied. Haile’s remaining pending motions, including his requests for sanctions, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Haile’s request for publication is denied.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 22

- 00460

- CR
James Michael Gray v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. A

- 22

- 5006

- CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 11, 2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          24,857                     212
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,857                     212
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,857                     212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          151,639                 105,530
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        18,864                  10,944
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,500                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,857                     212
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               945,964                 251,399
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (945,964)               (251,399)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (945,964)               (251,399)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)                  (0.02)




</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1304 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1304

                  For the relief of Belinda McGregor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 22, 1997

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                  For the relief of Belinda McGregor.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Belinda 
McGregor shall be held and considered to have been lawfully admitted to 
the United States for permanent residence as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Belinda McGregor as 
provided in this Act, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
officer to reduce by one number during the current fiscal year the 
total number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153 (a)).
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL

,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE

,

Appellee. §

§

§ No. 165 , 20 2 2

§

§ Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ Cr. I.D. No. 2102000228 ( S )

§

§

Submitted: May 25 , 20 2 2

Decided: May 31 , 20 2 2

Before SEITZ

, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN

, Justices

.

O R D E R

After consideration of the notice to show cause and the appellant’s response

,

it appears to the Court that:

(1) On May 16 , 202 2 , the appellant, Christopher Campbell, filed this

appeal from a Superior Court order dated and docketed on October 22, 2021, that

sentenced him for a violation of probation. T he Senior Court Clerk issued a notice

directing Campbell to show cause why th e appeal should not be dismissed as

untimely filed. Under Supreme Court Rules 6 and 11, a timely notice of appeal

should have been filed on or before November 22

, 202 1

.

(2) In response to the notice to show cause, Campbell challenges various

actions by Probation and Parole and asserts that he was not in violation of his2

probation

. He explains the delay in filing the notice of appeal by stating, “I thought

I was guilty but [I’m] not.”

(3) A notice of appeal must be timely filed to invoke the Court’s appellate

jurisdiction. 1 A notice of appeal must be received by the Court within the applicable

time period to be effective. 2 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to

file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court

- related personnel, an untimely

appeal cannot be considered. 3 The failure to f ile a timely appeal in this case is not

attributable to court

- related personnel. Therefore, the appeal must be dismisse d.

N OW, THEREFORE, IT IS OR DERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29(b)

,

that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ K aren L. Valihura

Justice

1 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).

2 D EL

. S UPR

. C T

. R. 10(a).

3 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-178-CV

JO ANNA KANUI, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANT

AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF 

KYLEIGH ROBERTS

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY APPELLEES

AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES BY 

AND THROUGH CAREY COCKERELL, 

IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; STACI 

M . LOVE, CHRISTIN H. IVEY, REGENA 

ROBINSON, ALFRED FREEMAN, REGINA 

HARRIS, AND VERONICA TERRELL 

IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL 

CAPACITIES

----------

FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion For Voluntary Dismissal.” It is

the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).
2

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J. 

DELIVERED: July 9, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on pages 2 and 3 of the
Company's Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended February 28, 1998, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                         441,708
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,388,267
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,996,855
<PP&E>                                         359,710
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (90,194)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,938,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,765,166
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,891,584
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,221,232
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,938,223
<SALES>                                     14,376,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,376,545
<CGS>                                       10,475,822
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,475,822
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,203,468
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             272,703
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,424,552
<INCOME-TAX>                                   562,620
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   821,321
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06

</TABLE>
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
 Public Horticulture and Engagement Unit: Washington, DC
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Washington, D.C. National Arboretum Public Horticulture and Engagement Unit People & Locations







Bradley  Evans
                        Public Horticulture and Engagement Unit

                        




                        
                        Horticulturist
                        Phone: (202) 245-4564
                        
                        
                        Fax: (202) 245-5973(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RONALD CLARK,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 37 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 18th day of September, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bernard Miller, Appellant.

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schwartzwald, J.), rendered December 22, 1981, convicting him of petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.