alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appea ls, s itting by a ss ignment. Tex. Gov ’t CodeAnn. §7 5.002 (a)(1 ) (Vern on Sup p. 200 3).
2 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 49 3 (1967). The purpose of an Anders brief is to support

the appellate counsel’s m otion to withdraw by showing that appellate counsel perform ed a co nsci ent io us ex am in ati on of the rec ord and c onc lu ded t hat an ap peal woul d be f ri v ol ous. NO. 07-02-0468 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L E JUNE 25, 2003

______________________________ LLOYD W AYNE LOTSON, Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON CO UNTY;

NO. 85657; HON. CHARLES CARVER, P RESIDING

_______________________________ Abatem ent and Remand

_______________________________ Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J. 1 Lloyd W ayne Lotson (appellant) appeals from a judgm entconvicting him of burglary of a habitation. Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders 2 brief indicating that no a rgu able bas is2

for appeal existed. A

fter conducting our ow n independent review of therecord, we abate thecau se a nd r

em and thepro cee ding for theapp oint m ent

of n ew cou nse l. Appellant entered a pl ea of no contest and subm itted the issue of punishm entto the trial cou rt. Be for

e accep ting his plea , th e tr ial c our t fa ile d to a dm onis h ap pella nt in accordance with article 26.1 3 (a) of the Code of Cri minal Procedure. Th is circu mstance raises an a rgu ablequestion regarding the propriety of appellant’s conviction. See Hughes
v. State , 8 33 S.W .2 d 1 37 , 1 40 (T ex. Crim. A pp. 1990); Campbell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 693, 701 (Tex. Crim . App. 1999) (holding that a total failure of the trial court to admonish the defendant

concerning the range of punishme nt is reversible error). Thus, we m ay not
accept app ellate co uns el’s

rep res ent atio n co nce rnin g th e m erits of theapp eal. Accordingl y, we abate the appeal and rem and the caus e to the Criminal Di strict Court of Jefferson Count

y, Texas. See S tafford

v. State , 813 S.W.2d 50 3, 51 1 ( Te x. Cr i m. App. 1991). Upon rem and, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent appellant in this appeal. The trial court shall further order the newly appointed counsel to file an
a ppell ant’s brief, as per the Texa s Rules of Appellate Procedure, de veloping the aforem ent ioned arguable ground, and all other grounds that m ight support reversal or modification of

the judgm ent. The deadline for filing the appellant’s brief with the clerk of thisapp ellate co urt

is J uly 23, 2003. Thereafter, any responding brief which the State ma y care to s ubm itshall be filed within 30 days after the fil ing of the app ella nt’s brief. Fi nall y, the trial court shall cause the name , address, and state bar num ber of

the newly appointed counsel to be incl uded in a supp lemental transcr ipt which transcript shall be filed with the clerk of this court by July 23, 2003.3

It is so ordered. Per Curiam Do not publish.
#### Masoud Micky, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

[947 NYS2d 511]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered April 13, 2011, after a jury trial, in plaintiffs favor, unanimously modified, on the facts, without costs, to vacate the awards for past and future pain and suffering and to direct a new trial on those issues, unless plaintiff stipulates, within 30 days of service of a copy of this order with notice of entry, to a reduction of the award for past pain and suffering from $250,000 to $100,000 and future pain and suffering from $500,000 to $150,000 and to entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered December 21, 2010, which denied defendants’ post-trial motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The issue of proximate cause was correctly submitted to the jury *(see Hecker v New York City Hous. Auth., 245*AD2d 131 [1997]). The jury’s resolution of any credibility issue raised by plaintiffs inconsistent explanations for his fall is entitled to deference *(see Haiyan Lu v Spinelli, 44*AD3d 546 [2007], *lv denied*10 NY3d 716 [2008]).

The issue of prior written notice of the defective condition of the sidewalk, pursuant to Administrative Code of City of NY § 7-201 (c) (2), was also correctly submitted to the jury *(see Patterson v City of New York,*1 AD3d 139 [2003]; *Vasquez v City of New York,*298 AD2d 187 [2002]).

We see no basis for disturbing the jury’s finding that plaintiff was not negligent.

*680We note that the City not only failed to offer expert testimony as to damages or to contradict plaintiffs evidence as to damages, but also conceded the severity of plaintiff’s injuries and invited the jurors to feel his pain, an invitation they apparently accepted. Nonetheless, we find that the award for past and future pain and suffering deviates materially from reasonable compensation to the extent indicated *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]; *compare Rivera v New York City Tr. Auth.,*92 AD3d 516 [2012]; *Alicea v City of New York,*85 AD3d 585 [2011]; *Hopkins v New York City Tr. Auth.,*82 AD3d 446 [2011]; *Ruiz v New York City Tr. Auth.,*44 AD3d 331 [2007]). Concur — Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Renwick, DeGrasse and Richter, JJ.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3
and Form S-8) of Epimmune Inc. of our report dated January 21, except for Note
11, as to which the date is March 7, 2000, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Epimmune Inc. included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1999, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Diego, California
March 16, 2000
[Cite as State v. Jackson, 124 Ohio St.3d 117, 2009-Ohio-6541.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . J ACKSON , A PPELLANT . [Cite as State v. Jackson, 124 Ohio St.3d 117, 2009-Ohio-6541.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on the authority of State v. Lester. (No. 2009-0239

— Submitted September 30, 2009

— Decided December 17, 2009.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, No. L-07-1281, 2008-Ohio-6805.

__________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State v. Lester , 123 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-4225, 916 N.E.2d 1038.
M OYER , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , and C UPP , JJ., concur.

__________________ Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. John B. Jackson, pro se.

______________________
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1840

To suspend temporarily the duty on chloroacetone.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 24, 1998

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

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on chloroacetone.

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

3 SECTION 1. CHLOROACETONE.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.29.11 Chloroacetone (CAS No. 78–

95–5) (provided for in subheading 2914.11.50) ............. Free No change No change On or before

12/31/02 ’’.

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

9 subsection (a) applies with respect to articles entered, or
2

•S 1840 IS

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1811

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from promulgating

any regulation, rule, or other order if the effect of such regulation,

rule, or order is to eliminate or modify any requirement under the

medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act for physician supervision of anesthesia services, as such requirement was in effect

on December 31, 1997.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 23, 1998

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

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services

from promulgating any regulation, rule, or other order

if the effect of such regulation, rule, or order is to

eliminate or modify any requirement under the medicare

program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act

for physician supervision of anesthesia services, as such

requirement was in effect on December 31, 1997.

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

•S 1811 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safer Seniors Medical

3 Care Act of 1998’’.

4 SEC. 2. PHYSICIAN SUPERVISION OF ANESTHESIA SERV5 ICES.

6 The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall

7 not promulgate any regulation, rule, or other order if the

8 effect of such regulation, rule, or order is to eliminate or

9 modify any requirement under the medicare program

10 under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

11 1395 et seq.) for physician supervision of anesthesia serv12 ices, as such requirement was in effect on December 31,

13 1997.

Æ
Exhibit 99.1*

BRONX VENTURES INC.



MARKETABLE SECURITIES - OTHER INVESTMENTS





Schedule I



December 31, 2005





|                                           |                                            |   |         |   |              |   |                                                      
|------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------ | - | ------- | - | ------------ | - | -----------------------------------------------------
|Name of Issuer and Title of Issuer         | Number of
Shares/Principal
Amount of Bonds |   | Costs   |   | Market Value |   | Amount at Which The Portfolio is Carried in the Books
|                                           |                                            |   |         |   |              |   |                                                      
|                                           |                                            |   |         |   |              |   |                                                      
|Verdon Gold                                | 5,000                                      | $ | 1,250   | $ | 2,175        | $ | 1,151                                                
|Las Vegas From Home.com Entertainment Inc. | 1,393,506                                  | $ | 269,373 | $ | 550,435      | $ | 269,374                                              
|Colt Capital Corp.                         | 1,000,000                                  | $ | 10,000  | $ | 10,000       | $ | 10,000                                               
|Great Canadian Gaming Corp.                | 11,000                                     | $ | 20,570  | $ | 18,018       | $ | 20,570                                               







As per the attached financial statements, the following investments were held at the end of December 31, 2005:



Investments

=   $301,095
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-93,745-01

EX P ARTE MIG UEL ANGEL CASTILLO , Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. A19589-1 IN THE 216TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM K

ERR COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of delivery of methamphetamine and sentenc ed to fi v e y ear s’ imprisonment. Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant say s the Parole Boa rd rele ased h i m t o m andator y supervision. He say s police

arr ested him for ag g rava ted robber y and eng ag ing in org anized crime, and he say s the Parole Boa rd, beca use of the new ch ar g es, issued a revoc ation war rant reg arding his rele ase to mandatory supervision. Applicant say s he has be en conf ined more tha

n 41-day s since the revoc ation war rant

was executed, but the State has not indicted him on the new offe nses, s o t h e re v o ca tion war rant shoul d be lifted. See T E X . G O V ’ T C O D E 508.282(a) (1)( A); Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 4712

(1972); Ex parte Cordova , 235 S.W .3d 735, 7 3 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, mig ht entitle him to relief. Acc ording ly , the re cord should be de veloped. The trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . ar t. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial c ourt shall order the Boa rd of Pardons and Paroles’s Offic e of the Gene ral Counsel to obtain a response from a person with knowledg e of rele vant fac ts. I n d ev el oping the

rec ord, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to be represe nted by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him at t he hearing

. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel is appointed or reta ined, the trial court shall immediately

notify this Court of counsel’s name

. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and co n clusions of law resolving the disputed fac tual issues. The trial court may make any other findings and conclusions that it deems appropr iate. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety d ay s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavit s , motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: May

18, 2022 Do not publish
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2086 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2086

 To revise the boundaries of the George Washington Birthplace National 
                               Monument.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 1998

 Mr. Warner (for himself and Mr. Robb) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To revise the boundaries of the George Washington Birthplace National 
                               Monument.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITION TO NATIONAL MONUMENT.

    (a) In General.--The boundaries of the George Washington Birthplace 
National Monument are modified to include the area comprising 
approximately 85 acres, generally known as ``George Washington's Ferry 
Farm'', in Stafford County, Virginia, and located across the 
Rappahannock River from Fredericksburg, Virginia, as generally depicted 
on the map entitled ``George Washington Birthplace National Monument 
Boundary Map'', numbered 322/80020 and dated May 1998.
    (b) Map.--The map described in subsection (a) shall be on file and 
available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
National Park Service.
    (c) Administration.--The area described in subsection (a) shall be 
managed--
            (1) in accordance with the provisions of law generally 
        applicable to the units of the National Park System, including 
        the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 565, chapter 408; 16 
        U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 
        666, chapter 593; 16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.);
            (2) to preserve the cultural and natural resources of the 
        area that are associated with the boyhood home of George 
        Washington; and
            (3) to interpret those resources to enhance public 
        understanding.
                                 <all>
```
Document

[Coty Management B.V. Letterhead]


Pierre Laubies
[XXX]
[XXX] Amsterdam


Amsterdam, 5 May 2020


Re:  Severance Payment Adjustment; Termination Date


Dear Pierre:


This letter agreement is to confirm that pursuant to Section 21 of that certain Settlement Agreement dated 27 February 2020 (the Settlement Ageement) by and between you and Coty Management B.V., a private limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, having its registered seat in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and its office address at Schiphol Boulevard 393 Toren B, 1118 BJ Schiphol, the Netherlands (the Company), the Company and you agree that:


•the “Severance Payment” set forth in Section 6 of the Settlement Agreement shall be reduced to an amount equal to €1.014.413,00 gross (including holiday allowance).  As we have agreed, this reduction in the Severance Payment is consistent with the recent reduction in your annual base salary approved by the Board of Directors of Coty, Inc.; and


•the “Termination Date” set forth in Section 1 of the Settlement Agreement shall be amended to 1 June 2020.  


Except as expressly set forth herein, all other terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement remain unmodified and in full force and effect.  This letter agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Netherlands. All disputes arising out of or in connection with this letter agreement shall be submitted in the first instance to the competent court in Amsterdam.


Please acknowledge your agreement with the foregoing modifications to the Settlement Agreement by executing where indicated below and returning a countersigned copy to me for our records.  


Best regards,
Coty Management B.V.


/s/ Jaap Bruinsma


Jaap Bruinsma
Senior HR Director Global HQ & Benelux


Acknowledged and agreed:




/s/ Pierre Laubies
 Pierre Laubies
Date:  5 May 2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

782 

CA 13-02124 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND VALENTINO, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF OBSESSION BAR AND GRILL, INC. 

AND JOAN ORTIZ, PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS,

V ORDER

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF CITY OF ROCHESTER AND 

CITY OF ROCHESTER, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

 

ROBERT J. BERGIN, CORPORATION COUNSEL, ROCHESTER (SARA L. VALENCIA OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

SANTIAGO BURGER ANNECHINO LLP, ROCHESTER (MICHAEL A. BURGER OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONERS-RESPONDENTS. 

 

Appeal from an amended judgment and order (one paper) of the

Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered February 26,

2013. The amended judgment and order, among other things, determined

that the decision of respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of City of

Rochester limiting the weekday closing hours of petitioner Obsession

Bar and Grill, Inc. is null and void. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the amended judgment and order so

appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated

in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: June 13, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
# C_2005251EN.01000401.xml

| 11.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/4

---

Notification by the Republic of Latvia concerning visa reciprocity (1)

1

(2005/C 251/05)

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Latvia to the EU presents its compliments to the Secretariat General of the Council of the European Union and has the honour to bring to their attention the following issue.

Becoming a Member State of the European Union, Latvia unilaterally introduced visa-free regime for the citizens of Republic of Bolivia in accordance with EU Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement.

Latvia would like to notify the Council and the Commission that the Republic of Bolivia applies visa-free regime up to 30 days to the citizens of the Republic of Latvia. Taking into account recital 4 of the Preamble of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement as regards the reciprocity mechanism, this situation can not be admitted as full reciprocity.

Taking into consideration the abovementioned and in accordance with the solidarity mechanism provided by Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 and Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 for achieving full reciprocity in respect to all Member States, Latvia believes that appropriate measures have to be taken in order to assure that all EU citizens may enter the territory of Republic of Bolivia under equal conditions.

The Permanent Representation of the Republic of Latvia to the EU avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Secretariat General of the Council of the European Union assurances of its highest consideration.

---

(1)  This notification is published in conformity with Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 851/2005 of 2 June 2005 (OJ L 141, 4.6.2005, p. 3) amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 (OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1).

1

---
Exhibit
99.1*



37
CAPITAL INC.

MARKETABLE
SECURITIES - OTHER INVESTMENTS





Schedule
I

December
31, 2017



|Name of Issuer and Title of Issuer |  | Number of Shares/Principal Amount of Bonds |  |  | Costs |  |  |  | Market Value |  |  | Amount at Which The Portfolio is Carried in the Books
|---------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------ |  |  | ----- |  |  |  | ------------ |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|Nil                                |  | Nil                                        |  |  | Nil   |  |  |  | Nil          |  |  | Nil
1 –ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JONATHAN B. NEUBER,

Case No. 6:15-cv-833-JR

Plaintiff, ORDER

v. 

JOSHUA PRITT, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________

MCSHANE, Judge:

Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo then filed a Findings and Recommendation, ECF No. 

101, recommending dismissing this action for failure to state a claim. The matter is now before 

me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Jonathan Neuber, proceeding pro se, filed 

objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, I have reviewed this case de 

novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 

656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and adopt the Findings and 

Recommendations. 

Case 6:15-cv-00833-JR Document 107 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 2
2 –ORDER

Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation, ECF No. 101, is ADOPTED in 

full. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 85, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion 

for partial summary judgment, ECF No. 73, is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 30th day of January, 2017.

 

/s/ Michael McShane

Michael McShane

United States District Judge

Case 6:15-cv-00833-JR Document 107 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 2