alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### CLARK, Respondent, v. MIDDLETOWN-GOSHEN TRACTION CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

November 20,1896.)

Action by Harriet W. Clark against the Middletown-Goshen Traction Company.

O’Neill & Itoyce, for appellant.

George T. Clark, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment appealed from perpetually enjoins the defendant from maintaining its tracks and operating its street railway in the city of Middletown, in front of the plaintiff’s premises, until such time as the defendant shall have paid to the plaintiff the sum of $750; being the amount of permanent loss and damage to such premises sustained by reason of the location of defendant’s track and operation of its railway in front of such property. It is in the usual form of judgments in elevated railroad cases in New York and Brooklyn, where the easements of abutting owners have been injuriously affected by the structure in the street. The plaintiff is the owner of the fee of the street in front of her property, and under the authority of Craig v. Railroad Co., 39 N. Y. 404, the occupation and use of the street by the defendant for its trolley railroad clearly entitled her to compensation. The court at special term held, upon evidence sufficient to support the finding, that the plaintiff’s property had been injured by the proximity of the rail to the curb, which prevented her premises from participating in the advantage which it would otherwise have received from the general enhancement of property values in Middletown. The learned counsel for the appellant, in their brief, assume that the trial judge, in what he said about the *1110enhancement which comes from the construction of public improvements, referred to the appreciation of values occasioned by the construction and operation of the railroad itself; "but we think it is plain that such was not his meaning, especially when reference is had to the testimony on the subject. That he meant a general increase, independent of the existence of the railroad, is shown by this extract from the testimony of a witness in respect to values: “The Court: Q. Suppose the railroad had not been built, I understand you to say that the property appreciated in value? A. Yes, sir; the property was enhancing in value before the railroad was built out that way. I think the railroad has depreciated the stores for renting purposes. It would be harder to rent now than it was before.’’ The judgment must he affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION

     In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Investors Capital
Holdings, Ltd. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, Theodore E. Charles, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) of 78(d); and

(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Investors
     Capital Holdings, Ltd.


Date:    November 14, 2003                  By:  /s/ Theodore E. Charles
                                               -------------------------------
                                                     Theodore E. Charles
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.2


 





AMENDMENT NO. 1


 


to


 


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


dated March 21, 2014


 


by and between


AXIS Specialty U.S. Services, Inc. (the “Company”)


and


David Phillips (the “Executive”)


 


Dated: June 17, 2021


 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive entered into an employment agreement
dated March 21, 2014 (the “Agreement”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of AXIS
Capital Holdings Limited, the Company and the Executive have determined that it is in the best interests of the Company, AXIS Capital
Holdings Limited and its shareholders to amend certain components of the Executive’s compensation;


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended, effective as of July
1, 2021, as follows:


 


		1.	Section 2(a) of the Agreement (Compensation and Benefits) is hereby amended to replace the reference to “575,000” in the
second line thereof with “$625,000”.



 


		2.	Section 2(c) of the Agreement (Compensation and Benefits) is hereby amended to replace the reference to “$720,000” in
the fifth line thereof with “$1,000,000”.



 


		3.	Except as set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed
this Amendment No. 1 as of the date first above written.


 









     


     


    

 


	 	 	AXIS SPECIALTY U.S. SERVICES, INC.
	 
	 	 	By:	 /s/ Noreen McMullan
	 	 	Name:	 Noreen McMullan
	 	 	Title:	Executive Vice President
	 
	Accepted and Agreed:	 	 	 
	 
	/s/ David Phillips	 	 	 
	David Phillips
Skip to main content

Privacy Policy•Site map

# Announcements

## Please join the court and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Bar Association for the June 19 brown bag program and webcast, "Meet the Office of Special Masters."

                                      - Read more about Please join the court and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Bar Association for the June 19 brown bag program and webcast, "Meet the Office of Special Masters."

## Pages

                              - « first
                              - ‹ previous
                              - ...
                              - 17
                              - 18
                              - 19
                              - 20
                              - 21
                              - 22
                              - 23
                              - 24
                              - 25

Howard T. Markey National Courts Building • 717 Madison Place, NW, Washington, DC 20439 • 202-357-6400
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Michael Patrick McCuskey, Chief United States **

District Judge for the Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM; YASMIN

FAUZIA; ABIDUR RAHMAN,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-73069

Agency Nos. A095-634-509

A097-361-020

A097-361-021

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted September 2, 2011 

Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MCCUSKEY, Chief

District Judge.** 

Mohammed Ibrahim, his wife Yasmin Fauzia, and their son Abidur Rahman

(collectively “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of Bangladesh, petition for review

FILED

SEP 15 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals adopting and affirming an

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Petitioners’ applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

Petitioners asserted fear of future persecution on account of Yasmin’s conversion

to Christianity. 

Yasmin was found not to be eligible for asylum because she filed years after

the passage of the one-year deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2)(i)(A). She

contends that she has demonstrated “changed” or “extraordinary” circumstances

pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5), justifying the delay. 

The IJ made an adverse credibility finding with respect to her assertion that

she converted to Christianity. Yasmin converted nearly ten years after arriving in

the United States and a few months after the initiation of her husband’s removal

proceedings. The IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial

evidence. Not only was the timing of the alleged conversion suspicious, but

Yasmin could not state the correct name of the church she said that she attended. 

Her stated reasons for converting to Christianity supported the IJ’s conclusion that

she converted only to stay in the United States and not because of her religious

belief.
3

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Yasmin has

failed to establish a clear probability that she will be persecuted in Bangladesh. 

Neither the country reports nor the alleged threatening letters support her claim. 

The letters, which Yasmin claims show that a fatwa was issued against her in

retaliation for her conversion, were written before her alleged conversion and bore

no indication of having been mailed from Bangladesh. 

The petition for review is DENIED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Emeritus Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), I, Daniel R. Baty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 
 1. The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
 
 2. The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 
 /s/ Daniel R. Baty
 Daniel R. Baty
 Chief Executive Officer
 August 12, 2004
Motion Granted in Part and Denied in Part and Order filed February 11, 2019

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00908-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.H. AND R.Q.D., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 310th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-61005

O R D E R

Oral argument is scheduled for Wednesday, February 13, 2019. At 2:00 p.m. 

on Friday, February 8, 2019, appellee filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a 

surreply brief and to postpone oral argument. We GRANT the motion for leave to 

file a surreply. The surreply is due on February 25, 2019. Requests for extension will 

be looked at with disfavor. We DENY the motion to postpone the oral argument.

If the parties do not wish to present oral argument on February 13, 2019, they 

may waive argument by agreement. Notification of such waiver shall be filed with 

this court no later than 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, February 12, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Hassan

(Justice Christopher would deny the motion in its entirety.)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 178 (Friday, September 17, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 51885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20062]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board--Appointment of 
Members

AGENCY: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members to the 
Performance Review Board (PRB) of the EEOC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelita Aldrich, Director, Operations 
Services Division, EEOC, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507, (202) 
921-3089.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Publication of the PRB membership is 
required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4). The PRB reviews and evaluates the 
initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the 
supervisor, and makes recommendations to the Chair, EEOC, with respect 
to performance ratings, pay level adjustments, and performance awards.
    The following are the names and titles of executives appointed to 
serve as members of the Senior Executive Service PRB. Designated 
members will serve a 12-month term, which begins on November 1, 2021.

PRB Chair

Mr. Kevin Richardson, Chief Human Capital Officer, EEOC

Members

Ms. Julianne Bowman, Director, Chicago District, EEOC
Mr. Carlton Hadden, Director, Office of Federal Operations, EEOC
Mr. Richard Toscano, Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Staff, U.S. 
Department of Justice
Ms. Veronica Venture, Director, EEO and Diversity, Department of 
Homeland Security
Ms. Rosa Viramontes, Director, Los Angeles District, EEOC (Alternate)
Ms. Gwendolyn Reams, Associate General Counsel for Litigation 
Management Services, EEOC (Alternate)

    By the direction of the Commission.
Mona Papillon,
Deputy Chief Operating Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-20062 Filed 9-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 215 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 215

To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
 to clarify the treatment of administrative expenses of the Department 
               of Veterans Affairs during sequestration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2015

Ms. Brown of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                     to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
 to clarify the treatment of administrative expenses of the Department 
               of Veterans Affairs during sequestration.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defending Veterans from 
Sequestration Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS DURING SEQUESTRATION.

    Section 256(h)(4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 906(h)(4)) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(G) Department of Veterans Affairs.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 20.3

[WFS FINANCIAL LETTERHEAD]

23 PASTEUR
P.O. BOX 19733
IRVINE, CA 92613-9733
(949) 727-1000

March 29, 2001

Chase Manhattan Bank USA,                  Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
National Association                      99 Church Street
1201 Market Street                         New York, NY 10007
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Bankers Trust Company                      Standard & Poor's Ratings Services
4 Albany Street                            A division of McGraw-Hill, Inc.
New York, New York 10006                   25 Broadway
                                           New York, NY 10004
Financial Security Assurance Inc.
350 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022

Re:   Annual Statement as to Compliance for
      WFS Financial 2000-C Owner Trust

Dear Sir or Madam:

                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE

Pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement ("Agreement")
dated as of August 1, 2000, and to Section 3.09 of the Indenture
("Indenture"), dated as of the same date, the undersigned officers of WFS
Financial Inc. (the "Master Service") certify that:

      (i)   a review of the activities of the Master Servicer since the closing
date and of its performance under the Agreement and the Indenture has been made
under such officers' supervision, and

      (ii)  to the best of such officers' knowledge, based on such review, the
Master Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement and the
Indenture throughout such year and that no default under the Agreement or the
Indenture has occurred.


/s/ MARK OLSON                            /s/ AMY MCLACHLAN
-------------------------------------     -------------------------------------
Mark Olson                                Amy McLachlan
Senior Vice President & Controller        Assistant Secretary


cc: A. Katz, Esq.
RAYMOND MARK LEE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-1022

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 22, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County.

Gregory S. Parker, Judge.

Diana L. Johnson of Johnson and Lufrano, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Matthew Pavese, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, WETHERELL, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Yeni MENJIVAR-HERCULES and Uriel Menjivar-Hercules, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70344.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 28, 2011.

Jenny Tsai, Green & Tsai, Attorneys at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.

OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Don George Scroggin, 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.

*698Before: FARRIS, LEAVY and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioners Yeni Menjivar-Hercules and her brother Uriel Menjivar-Hercules, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of withholding of removal because petitioners failed to show they were subject to conduct rising to the level of persecution. *See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,*319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2003) (holding unfulfilled threats and an incident of physical violence did not establish past persecution).

Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s denial of withholding of removal because petitioners failed to show that gang members threatened them on account of a protected ground. Their fear of future persecution based on an actual or imputed anti-gang or anti-crime opinion is not on account of the protected ground of either membership in a particular social group or political opinion. *Ramos Barrios v. Holder,*581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); *Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008); *see Ochave v. INS,*254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir.2001) (“Asylum generally is not available to victims of civil strife, unless they are singled out on account of a protected ground.”) Likewise, perceived wealth is not a protected ground. *Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,*600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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

1

. Petitioners conceded their asylum application was untimely and did not request relief under the Convention Against Torture.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,399
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,606
<PP&E>                                           6,230
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,405
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,075
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27,322)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,753
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,210
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 678
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,888)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,888)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,888)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Noel Pinnero, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Potoker, J.), rendered May 20, 1982, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record reveals that the defendant failed to raise his present contentions concerning alleged errors in the jury charge in the court of first instance. Thus, he has failed, as a matter of law, to preserve those issues for appellate review *(see, People v Chin,*67 NY2d 22; *People v Cona,*49 NY2d 26; *People v Rios,*100 AD2d 521). In any event, we note that the court’s charge concerning accessorial liability and intoxication was proper.

Additionally, we find the sentence imposed to be well within the bounds of the court’s sound discretion and neither harsh nor excessive in view of the defendant’s history of criminal activity and the serious nature of the instant offense *(see, People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302; *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.