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

[943 NYS2d 59]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John S. Moore, J.), rendered January 8, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life and 25 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion when it precluded defendant from testifying that the murder victim had requested that defendant accompany him to court shortly before the homicide. This testimony’s potential for prejudice substantially outweighed any probative value *(see People v Mateo, 2*NY3d 383, 424-425 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]). At most, this evidence tended to show that the murder victim did not consider defendant an enemy. However, this did little to contradict the People’s theory that the murder and attempted murder were primarily motivated by gang politics rather than animosity toward the victims. Moreover, the precluded testimony was irrelevant to anything other than the victim’s state of mind and cumulative to other evidence that the court received. The unexplained reference to a court case carried the potential for speculation and prejudice.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court erred in precluding him from testifying about another statement by the murder victim *(see People v George,*67 NY2d 817, 819 [1986]), or any constitutional arguments regarding either of the *620precluded statements *(see People v Lane,*7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits *(see Crane v Kentucky,*476 US 683, 689-690 [1986]). We also reject defendant’s related claim of ineffective assistance of counsel *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Schedule II




                             ZOOM TELEPHONICS, INC.
                        VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                   Years ending December 31, 1995, 1996, 1997

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                   Balance at                                         Balance
                                   beginning         Charged to      Amounts          at end
        Description                of year           expense        written off       of year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<S>                              <C>               <C>            <C>              <C>
Reserve for doubtful accounts    $    254,000      $   770,000    $     175,124    $   848,876
Reserve for price protection          758,788        2,228,039        2,486,110        500,717
Reserve for sales returns             530,649          400,000          210,153        720,496
Other allowances                      644,027        1,463,933        1,460,586        647,374
                                    ---------        ---------        ---------        -------
Year ending December 31, 1995    $  2,187,464      $ 4,861,972    $   4,331,973    $ 2,717,463
                                    =========        =========        =========      =========

Reserve for doubtful accounts    $    848,876      $   400,000    $     165,568    $ 1,083,308
Reserve for price protection          500,717        3,536,410        3,328,531        708,596
Reserve for sales returns             720,496                -              442        720,054
Other allowances                      647,374        1,855,183        1,450,414      1,052,143
                                      -------        ---------        ---------      ---------
Year ending December 31, 1996    $  2,717,463  $     5,791,593    $   4,944,955    $ 3,564,101
                                    =========        =========        =========      =========

Reserve for doubtful accounts    $  1,083,308  $     2,631,782    $   3,248,060    $   467,030
Reserve for price protection          708,596        5,965,245        5,367,363      1,306,478
Reserve for sales returns             720,054          626,426          314,841      1,031,639
Other allowances                    1,052,143        3,531,766        2,870,850      1,713,059
                                    ---------        ---------        ---------      ---------
Year ending December 31, 1997    $  3,564,101  $    12,755,219    $  11,801,114    $ 4,518,206
                                   ==========       ==========       ==========      =========

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

No. 10-71538.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 12, 2011.*

Filed July 21, 2011.

Sassoun Nalbandian, Law Offices of Sas-soun A. Nalbandian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.

John J.W. Inkeles, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief 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 **

Armen Margaryan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Margaryan’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than ten years after the final removal order, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii), and Margar-yan failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, *see Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897 (deadline can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 10


EXHIBIT 10.48 




Description of Oral Extension-W. Browne Promissory Note




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


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	10.7

	W. Browne

	

12/21/2006



	11/01/2007

	12/31/2008

	$50,000.00*

	10%









*$50,000 is the remaining principal balance of this note.  The original loan amount was $75,000.  However, the Company made a payment toward the principal balance ($25,000) on August 24, 2007.
0 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . ··-,-

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

EUGENE DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6:13-CR- \qt:) / AA 

v. 

KIMBERLY PRUITT, 

Defendant. 

MISDEMEANOR 

INFORMATION 

18 u.s.c. § 641 

THE U.S. ATTORNEY CHARGES: 

COUNT ONE 

On or about June 7, 2011, in the District of Oregon, KIMBERLY PRUITT, defendant 

herein, did knowingly received a thing ofvalue of the Department ofVeteran's Affairs, a 

department or agency of the United States, namely 100 80 mg pills of Oxycontin, a controlled 

narcotic from the VA Pharmacy, having a value of approximately $600, knowingly the same to 

have been stolen; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code Section 641. 

3

rc\--

Dated this day of May 2013 

Information - United States v. Pruitt Page 1 of 1 

r !. 

f 

t 

~ 

f 

I 

l 

I 

r 

I 

l 

I 

f 

i 

l 

~ 

Case 6:13-cr-00195-AA Document 1 Filed 05/03/13 Page 1 of 1
#### NEW YORK NOVELTY CO. v. MELA.

(City Court of New York,

General Term.

October 30, 1896.)

Evidence—Sufficiency.

Plaintiff claimed that defendant, his landlord, agreed to pay $100 towards alterations on the premises. Defendant testified that he only agreed to pay the cost of the labor in making the alterations on representations by plaintiff that he had the materials therefor, and that the labor would not cost over $30. Plaintiff paid $125 for the alterations, but did not furnish the material. *Held,*that the fact that defendant, before suit, offered to pay plaintiff $50, warranted a finding that he agreed to pay for the labor, and that the labor was worth $50.

Appeal from special term.

Action by the Hew York Hovelty Company against Ferd. H. Mela. Judgment was entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for new trial defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before YAH WYOK, C. J., and FITZSIMOHS, J.

*556Charles Putzel, for appellant.

Edgar A. Lauer, for respondent.

VAN WYGK, C. J.

The plaintiff contended by proof and pleading that defendant agreed to pay not exceeding $100 for certain alterations to be made in steam-pipe connections in defendant’s premises, which he had leased to plaintiff for a three-years term at $7,500 rent annually; while the defendant testified that, at the conversation he had with plaintiff’s agent about the steam-pipe connections to be made, this agent said that his company already had the pipes íb the premises from which they intended to move, and that the pipes • could be taken out and brought to defendant’s premises if defendant would pay for making the connections, and that in response he ■ (defendant) had thought it over, and considering that it probably would cost $25 or $30, and that as he did not care for a matter of' $20 or $30, he would stand it. The old pipe was not taken out and brought to defendant’s premises, but plaintiff caused the connections to be made with new pipe, and paid $125 for such pipe and' the labor for connecting same. The plaintiff’s agent testified that before action was brought the defendant had offered to pay $50, which was refused. The jury found for plaintiff for $50, evidently-concluding that defendant had agreed to pay for the labor, but not for the material, and that as defendant had offered to pay $50 the labor was worth that sum. The appellant’s contention is that, because the plaintiff’s witnesses had testified that it was entitled to $100 or nothing, the verdict should have been for plaintiff for that amount, or for the defendant. The jury, as it had the right, believed a part of plaintiff’s evidence and a part of defendant’s evidence, andb their verdict is not against evidence or weight of evidence.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

VIRGEAN HOUSKINS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 03 C 6553

)

MICHAEL F. SHEAHAN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

For many months the “Motions Report” ordered by this Court

at regular intervals has reflected a pending motion by defendant

Michael Sheahan to stay, without the posting of any bond, the

judgment obtained against him by plaintiff Virgean Houskins. 

From the parties’ inaction it appears that they have likely

arrived at some informal understanding in that respect, but it is

inappropriate to leave such a motion (Dkt. No. 126) lying

dormant. Accordingly the parties are ordered on or before

February 5, 2007 to file either an agreed disposition of the

motion or, if not agreed, a statement of their respective

positions on the issue.

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: January 26, 2007
Amendment No. 3 to Second Amended and Restated 1999 Equity Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT NO. 3 
 TO 
 HOLOGIC, INC. 
 SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 1999 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 

 The following amendment to the Hologic, Inc. (the “Corporation”) Second Amended and Restated 1999 Equity Incentive Plan (the
“Plan”), upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee, was approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation on December 9, 2008, and is being made without shareholder approval as such approval is not necessary to comply with
any applicable requirement of the laws of the jurisdiction of incorporation of the Corporation, any applicable tax requirement, any applicable rules or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Rule 16(b)-3 (or any successor
rule thereunder), or the rules and regulations of The Nasdaq Stock Market or any other exchange or stock market over which the Corporation’s securities are listed: 
 1. Section 12(i) “Amendment of Award” is hereby amended by deleting the last sentence thereof and replacing it with the following: 
 “Notwithstanding the foregoing, except as provided in Section 5(b), without the prior approval of the Company’s stockholders, neither the
Company nor the Board will take any action to amend or modify any Award to lower the award, exercise or conversion price applicable to such Award or otherwise cancel an outstanding Award for the purpose of repricing, replacing or regranting such
Award previously granted for cash or other consideration.” 
 2. Except as amended hereby, the Second Amended and Restated 1999 Equity
Incentive Plan shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its original terms. 
 Amendments effective as of December 9, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-17-00035-CV

Style: In re Seascape Owners Association, Inc., and Home Depot USA, Inc., 

d/b/a The Home Depot, Relators

Date motion filed*: February 9, 2017

Type of motion: Unopposed Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing of Response to

Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Parties filing motions: Real Parties in Interest Julie Dow, Individually, and as Executrix of the 

Estate of David Holden Gasser, Deceased, and Karen Ragland, Heir at 

Law of the Estate of David Holden Gasser, Deceased

Document to be filed: Response to Petition

Is appeal accelerated? Yes (original proceeding).

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: February 21, 2017

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due Date: February 21, 2017

Date Requested: March 15, 2017

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: March 15, 2017.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

  

Date: February 14, 2017
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

TROY LUKENS, 

Plaintiff, No 3:14-cv-00959-TC

v.

HEIDI STEWARD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Coffin issued a Findings and Recommendation [14] on September 11, 

2014, in which he recommends that this Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File 

Amended Complaint [8] and dismiss sua sponte defendants Michael D. Schrunk, Irene B. 

Taylor, and “the Office of Public Defense Service.” The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & 

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the 

Case 3:14-cv-00959-TC Document 50 Filed 12/02/14 Page 1 of 2
Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude there is no basis to modify 

the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de 

novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Coffin’s Findings & Recommendation [14].

Accordingly, defendants Michael D. Schrunk, Irene B. Taylor, and “the Office of Public Defense 

Service” are dismissed; and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [8] is 

granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2014.

 

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00959-TC Document 50 Filed 12/02/14 Page 2 of 2
#### Kun Sik Kim, Respondent, v State Street Hospitality, LLC, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[941 NYS2d 511]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants *712State Street Hospitality, LLC, Nytex Development, Inc., and Martin Environmental Services, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated March 17, 2011, which denied their motion for leave to renew their opposition to the plaintiffs prior cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action insofar as asserted against them, which had been granted in an order of the same court dated September 20, 2010.

Ordered that the order dated March 17, 2011, is affirmed, with costs.

The “new” evidence submitted in support of the appellants’ motion for leave to renew the plaintiff’s prior cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action would not have changed the prior determination *(see*CPLR 2221 [e] [2]; *Grossman v New York Life Ins. Co.,*90 AD3d 990, 992 [2011]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in *denying the*appellants’ motion for leave to renew their opposition to the plaintiffs prior cross motion *(see Matter of Choy v Mai Ling Lai,*91 AD3d 772 [2012]). Balkin, J.P., Belen, Hall and Miller, JJ., concur.
# Fo urth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 24, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00868

- CV

Sam YOUNGBLOOD; Daniel P. Diepenhorst; Citrus Holdings, LLC; John William Hayes; Bob Warshawer; Jay McAnnelly; Ehrenberg Chesler Capital Partners, LLC; Ernest T. Wakabayashi,

I ndividually and as Trustee of The Wakabayashi Trust; Gil Hodge; Patricia Hodge; Carter Speer; and Kai Wakabayashi (Cross

- Appellee)

,

Appellant s

v.

Phil ZACCARIA and Pioneer C

- Stores Management, Inc. (Cross

- Appellant), Appellee s

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI19312 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellants have filed an unopposed motion for extension of time in which to file their brief, requesting the deadline be extended to February 4, 2020. Appellants’ motion is

GRANTED. Additionally, cross

- appellants/appellees have filed a motion in which they request they “be permitted to present [their] brief on t he merits ... by inclusion in [their] brief in response” to appellants’ brief on the merits. Cross

- appellants’ motion is GRANTED.

Appellants’ brief is due on or before February 4, 2020. Cross

- appellants’/appellees’ brief is due within twenty days after ap pellants’ brief is filed.

___________________________ ______ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of January, 2020

._____________________________ ______ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 24, 2020

No. 04-19-00868-CV

Sam YOUNGBLOOD; Daniel P. Diepenhorst; Citrus Holdings, LLC; John William Hayes; Bob 

Warshawer; Jay McAnnelly; Ehrenberg Chesler Capital Partners, LLC; Ernest T. Wakabayashi, 

Individually and as Trustee of The Wakabayashi Trust; Gil Hodge; Patricia Hodge; Carter Speer; 

and Kai Wakabayashi (Cross-Appellee),

Appellants

v.

Phil ZACCARIA and Pioneer C-Stores Management, Inc. (Cross-Appellant),

Appellees

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI19312

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellants have filed an unopposed motion for extension of time in which to file their 

brief, requesting the deadline be extended to February 4, 2020. Appellants’ motion is 

GRANTED. Additionally, cross-appellants/appellees have filed a motion in which they request 

they “be permitted to present [their] brief on the merits ... by inclusion in [their] brief in 

response” to appellants’ brief on the merits. Cross-appellants’ motion is GRANTED.

Appellants’ brief is due on or before February 4, 2020. Cross-appellants’/appellees’ brief 

is due within twenty days after appellants’ brief is filed.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of January, 2020.
___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
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
 Southern Horticultural Research Unit: Poplarville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Employee and Collaborator Spotlights
                        Dr. Hamidou Sakhanoko
                                    Recent Employee Arrivals and Departures!
                                    Mississippi State University Coastal Research and Extension Center
                                    University of Tennessee, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology
                                    Tennessee State University Otis Floyd Nursery Research Center
                    Quick Links
                        Small Fruit and Ornamental Genetics Group
                                    Production Management Research Group
                                    Plant Releases
                                    Administrative TeamSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Poplarville, Mississippi Southern Horticultural Research Unit People







Jennifer B Carroll    Biological Science Technician Insects /ARSUserFiles/36321/Jennifer.JPG


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