alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### VAN BEUREN et al., Appellants, v. LAZARUS et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 11, 1896.)

Action Elizabeth S. Van Beuren and others against Sarah Lazarus others. William Mitchell, for appellants. Nelson S. Spencer, for respondents.

*1135PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Williams in the case of Van Beuren v. Wotherspoon. 42 N. Y. Supp. 404 (decided herewith), the judgment appealed from should be reversed, and a judgment entered appointing a suitable person to appraise and value the lot and building, etc., as prayed in the complaint, with costs of the action and of the appeal.
#### Cultural Center Commission, Respondent, v Rene*1044lem, Inc., Parcel 2-6, Appellant.

Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

GARY FAIN JOHNSON, JR., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-3239 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed January 2, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Debra Johnes Riva, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Rachel Roebuck, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad Martin, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
#### Sylvester E. HARDING, III, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

No. 2011-3091.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 1, 2011.

Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Sylvester E. Harding, III moves for a stay and default judgment. The Department of Veterans Affairs moves for leave to file its brief out of time. Harding opposes.

Harding has not shown entitlement to the relief requested.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) Harding’s motion is denied.

(2) The motion for leave to file a brief out of time is granted.
Unassociated Document










EXHIBIT 10.1(e)







FIFTH AMENDMENT TO REAL ESTATE LEASE







THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 5th day of May, 2006, by and between TIPPMANN PROPERTIES, INC., as agent for LAURENCE TIPPMANN, SR. FAMILY PARTNERSHIP (hereinafter referred to as “Lessor”), and TOWER FINANCIAL CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to as “Lessee”), and WITNESSETH:







WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into a Real Estate Lease dated January 1, 1999, amended on March 8, 1999, August 12, 1999, June 29, 2001, and March 24, 2004 currently covering approximately 41,791 usable  square feet of premises commonly known as 116 East Berry Street, Suite 100, Fort Wayne, Indiana;







AND WHEREAS, Lessee and Lessor are desirous of leasing as of May 1, 2006, an additional approximately five thousand four hundred sixteen (5,416) square feet of office space commonly known as Suite 585 (2,857 square feet), Suite 535 (2,439 square feet) and Suite 550 (120 square feet);







NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows:








	
  

	
1.

	
Beginning May 1, 2006, the leased premises shall be increased to reflect approximately five thousand four hundred sixteen (5,416) square feet of additional office space as depicted on the attached Exhibit “A” for a total of approximately forty seven thousand two hundred seven (47,207) square feet.













	
  

	
2.

	
Lessor shall contribute Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Seventy and 00/100th Dollars ($28,570.00) to be used for the tenant improvement expenses in the renovation of Suite 585.  Lessee shall provide receipts for reimbursement after the work is completed.













	
  

	
3.

	
The rent shall be amended as of May 1, 2006 based upon the approximately 5,416 square feet of additional office space payable incrementally based on the existing rate structure.













	
  

	
4.

	 






	
Term

	 	
Total Sq. Ft.

	 	 	
Monthly Rent

	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
5/1/06  -  12/31/06

	 	 	47,207	 	 	$	53,107.88	 
	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	
1/1/07  -  12/31/13

	 	 	47,207	 	 	$	58,025.27	 











	
  

	
5.

	
Except as hereby amended, all other terms and conditions contained in the original Real Estate Lease are hereby reaffirmed and left unchanged by the terms of this Fifth Amendment.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Fifth Amendment on the day and year first above written.








	
TIPPMANN PROPERTIES INC., Agent

	  	
TOWER FINANCIAL CORPORATION


	
for Laurence Tippmann, Sr. Family Partnership

	  	  
	
(“Lessor”)

	  	
(“Lessee”)


	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
BY:

	
/s/ Charles E. Tippmann

	  	
BY:

	
/s/ Michael D. Cahill

	  
	  	  	  	  	  	  
	
PRINTED:

	
Charles E. Tippmann

	  	
PRINTED:

	
Michael D. Cahill
#### In the Matter of Waldon Walker, Respondent, v Walter R. Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants.

*1019Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
_________________________________________ 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131824-5 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF Justices 

TRANSPORTATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 131824, 131825 

 COA: 257798, 257799 

Kent CC: 00-10127-CC,

HAROLD R. WEAVER and CLARA WEAVER, 00-10128-CC 

Husband and Wife, and CLARA WEAVER

TRUST, HAROLD R. WEAVER TRUST, and 

HAROLD R. and CLARA WEAVER 

CHARITABLE REMAINDER UNITRUST, 

under a trust agreement dated December 31, 1998, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 27, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 24, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit 10.10


 


Spousal Consent


 


I, [] (ID No.: []), is the
legal spouse of [        ](ID No.: []). On December 24, 2020, I hereby unconditionally and irrevocably consent to the execution of the following
documents by [        ] on December 24, 2020 (the “Reorganization Documents”), and agree to the disposal of the equity interest
held by [        ] and registered under his name in Shenzhen Yitian Internet Network Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Domestic Companies”)
in accordance with the following documents:


 


		1.	The Equity Pledge Agreement with Shenzhen Weiyixin Technology Co., Ltd. (the “WFOE”) and the
Domestic Company;



 


		2.	The Exclusive Option Contract with the WFOE and the Domestic Companies;



 


		3.	The Assets Exclusive Purchase Agreement entered into with the WFOE and the Domestic Companies; and



 


		4.	Power of attorney signed with WFOE.



 


I undertake that I shall not
raise any claim with respect to the equity interest held by [        ] in the Domestic Companies during the date hereof until the expiration
of the validity period of the Reorganization Documents. I further confirm that the performance by [        ] of the Reorganization Documents
and further amendment or termination of the Reorganization Documents do not require my other authorization or consent.


 


I undertake to sign all necessary
documents and take all necessary actions to ensure that the Reorganization Documents (as amended from time to time) will be properly implemented.


 


I agree and undertake, if I
obtain, for any reason, any shareholding interest in the domestic company held by [        ], I shall be bound by the reorganization documents
(as amended from times to time) and comply with the obligations as the shareholder of the domestic company under the reorganization documents
(as amended from times to time) and, for that purpose, once the WFOE makes any request, I shall sign a series of written documents with
the similar format and content as the reorganization documents (as amended from time to time).


 


(Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank)


 




     


     


    


 


	(Signature Page Follows)	 
	 	 
	Covenantor:	 
	 	 	 
	By:
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2445 

To express the sense of Congress with respect to enabling Food and Drug 

Administration scientific engagement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 19, 2015 

Mr. GUTHRIE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To express the sense of Congress with respect to enabling 

Food and Drug Administration scientific engagement. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ENABLING FDA SCIENTIFIC ENGAGEMENT. 

4 It is the sense of Congress that participation in or 

5 sponsorship of scientific conferences and meetings is es6 sential to the mission of the Food and Drug Administra7 tion. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 07-14-00028-CR

Ezekiel Will Bell

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 46th District Court

 of Wilbarger County

March 9, 2015

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated March 9, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 26, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-60632

Summary Calendar

MEI HUA CHEN,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA No. A98 880 761)

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

Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Mei Hua Chen seeks review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that denied her motion to reopen

removal proceedings. In April 2005, an Immigration Judge (IJ)

ordered Chen removed in absentia. In March 2006, after two prior

motions to reopen had been denied, Chen filed her third motion to

reopen. The BIA denied Chen’s third motion to reopen as

numerically barred pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) and also

noted that, even if the motion were not number barred, it would be

denied for failing to establish a claim of ineffective assistance
2

of counsel. Chen argues that the BIA erred in finding that she had

not established a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and

that, as a result, the BIA abused its discretion in finding her

motion numerically barred.

As Chen previously filed two other motions to reopen, her

third motion to reopen was barred by the numerical limitation set

forth in § 1003.2(c)(2), which permits only one motion to reopen.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion to

reopen. See Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000).

Furthermore, we agree with the BIA’s observation regarding Chen’s

failure to establish a viable claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel. Chen’s petition for review is 

DENIED.
----

|   | 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                                  |
|   | Co-Chief Executive Officer                      |
|   | May 3, 2010                                     |

----
#### Lichtman v Grossbard.

Motion granted insofar as to grant reargument of a prior order of this court, and upon reargument, the memorandum decision [129 AD2d 437] is amended as indicated, and insofar as it seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Concur Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Milonas, Rosenberger and Smith, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Alan R. SCHWARZ, Private First Class, U.S. Marine Corps, Appellant.

No. 30,322.

U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

July 25, 1975.

*Lieutenant Michael C. Barr,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel P. N. Kress,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In a trial by special court-martial convened at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina, the appellant was convicted of an assault and battery in accordance with his plea and using indecent language contrary to his plea, offenses which are in violation of Articles 128 and *131134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 928 and 934. When the appellant’s case originally came before the Navy Court of Military Review, that court ordered a new review by the staff judge advocate and further action by the convening authority in view of certain prejudicial errors and omissions in the first review.

The appellant’s case is now before this Court, a new review and action having been accomplished and the case thereafter affirmed by the Court of Military Review. Our examination of this second post-trial review, however, reveals yet a further deficiency. In the section of his review where the staff judge advocate set forth his summarization of opinions as to the legality of these proceedings, he erroneously stated that the findings of guilty to both charges and specifications were supported beyond a reasonable doubt by the provident guilty pleas of the appellant. Notwithstanding the correct designation of those pleas elsewhere in the review, as well as discussion of the findings and their evidentiary basis, we find such erroneous advice to be prejudicially confusing and misleading. *United States v. McIlveen,*23 U.S.C.M.A. 357, 49 C.M.R. 761 (1975).

While a new review and action by a different convening authority would normally constitute appropriate relief for an error such as this, we see no useful purpose to be gained by yet another review and action in this case. The findings of guilty of the charge and specification alleging the use of indecent language are accordingly set aside and dismissed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for submission to the Court of Military Review for reassessment of the sentence on the basis of the assault and battery offense which is hereby affirmed.
# C_2021459EN.01003701.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/37

---

EUROPEAN FOUNDATION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF LIVING AND WORKING CONDITIONS

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/37)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/page/field_ef_documents/eurofound_annual_accounts_2020.pdf

---
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00378-CR 

RICARDO CANTU RESENDEZ, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 320th District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 68807-D, Honorable Don R. Emerson, Presiding 

 

December 4, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appearing pro se, appellant Ricardo Cantu Resendez attempts to appeal his 

conviction and sentence of six years’ confinement in prison for fraudulent use or 

possession of identifying information.1 Sentence was imposed on July 28, 2014, and 

appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 17, 2014. Appellant did not file a motion 

for new trial.

 

1

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.51(c)(2) (West Supp. 2014). 
2

By letter, we notified appellant his notice of appeal appeared untimely thus 

depriving us of appellate jurisdiction. We afforded him an opportunity to file documents 

or matters he considered necessary for determination of our jurisdiction. Appellant 

made no response.

Our appellate jurisdiction is triggered through a timely notice of appeal. Olivo v. 

State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appellate rule 26.2(a) requires a 

notice of appeal in a criminal case be filed within 30 days after the day sentence is 

imposed in open court or within 90 days after imposition of the sentence if a timely 

motion for new trial is filed. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1), (2).

Because appellant did not file a motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was due 

within thirty days after the date sentence was imposed in open court. Appellant’s notice 

of appeal was filed more than eighty days after imposition of sentence and was 

therefore untimely. Our appellate jurisdiction has not been invoked.

Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.2

James T. Campbell

 Justice

Do not publish. 

 

 

2 We do not reach the second issue called to appellant’s attention by our letter. 

The trial court’s certification of appellant’s right to appeal states this “is a plea-bargain 

case and the defendant has no right of appeal.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2),(d).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50879

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KEITH BRYANT WEBB,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-96-CV-121

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

December 1, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Keith Bryant Webb, a federal inmate (# 19665-080), appeals

the district court’s denial of his third motion to vacate

sentence filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Webb argues that

the district court erred in denying his motion based on a finding

that he abused the § 2255 procedure under Rule 9(b) of the Rules

Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. 
No. 97-50879

- 2 -

Webb has failed to show cause for his failure to raise in

his previous § 2255 motions his claims that the federal trial

court lacked jurisdiction over him, nor has he shown that a

fundamental miscarriage of justice will result if his claims are

not entertained. See United States v. Flores, 993 F.2d 231, 234

(5th Cir. 1993); Saahir v. Collins, 956 F.2d 115, 120 (5th Cir.

1992) (§ 2254 case). The district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing the § 2255 motion under Rule 9(b). See

Saahir, 956 F.2d at 120. 

Webb’s “Petition in Response to the Lower Court Missing

Initial Arraignment Transcript and Seal Court Order” is DENIED.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021459EN.01002501.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/25

---

EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/25)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/annual-accounts-financial-year-2020_en.pdf

---
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 
Hall. -0 c. Heynfm, Maroh 15, 1939, Page 2 

The form of lease unaer OOMid8retiOu Is an 

"Or" 86 dIstlngulah8d from en "udj8ss* leeie. a the 

ohereoter 0r lease under oouaideretlon, the oovenant 

t0 pay annual rental6 In lieu or drilling 1s an obllgetion On the part Of the lbmee, whloh 0~ only be avoIded 

by the lessees hevlng e ttily instrrmasnt or rslfnqulshMl¶t recorded ill the ooMtJ or OOttntIee in rhloh the 

arua Under lees8 may b8 situated, end also riling suoh 

Instrument 0r rellnqulshxwnt in the Land orri0e eooompanled by #LOO for l eoh area emsQned aa provided in 

sut~~ 10, Aaa um, 4lsu@Isrillrtars pa 960, abag. 

ma.88-~oaialsslarrd'l*~. 

( 

r0~mmp~t404 rot in at0 x0880, OT to 0an0d and rorteit'the lease Sor non-payment of rentala, In tbu event 

the l~seor elook toosneel aria r0ait fhe loam, auah 

iortelturo may be made byt (1) a cult Wtltated by.tbe 

‘Atm.Wn8r8l for that p~trpow or (a) auoh iOXT&Um 

MY h0 made by a113 ~08~4 r0r m48e 0r unmr8gty uiu48. by 

8n ardor enter04 upon the xlnutu or. the Boar4 *+eltlng 

t$ati~aniatltutlng the default and deolarlna t&8 

. 

fnOlUooipiOIlthO'8tdUtO illqW38tiOlld 

8l80 fh0 ptoritli0a Or tb6 x8680 ‘in 9F8tioll rwU%m fhaq 

th8 order or rorrekltum bo a 8peofiio order moltlq8p0OiiiO f8Ot8 8~0h 88 i8flm fo P8Y TO&&~ %ZI 8 gw’ 

taln utnmt, *hioh had booam due w 6 08-h dab, 

and dasoribing fhe pati t0 the 1~8% the d&i8 Or. 

the learre, and ths land o~vex'ed w tti 18ess, t0GP-k 

ulthmoh Ot,hsr relevant iaot8 as uiu: 88rve to ldentl- 

. $'y beyonsl quastlon the leas8 rhioh ie being rOti4m34 

aa the ma80na thueror. Althoughwe 40 notbe1leve 

th8t a 8Oprab order r0r ,4aoh 18880 rorrelted 18 8b80- 

1UtSw UOOOBS-, mt, ill W Opinion, it UOtia \le wfor a separate order to be e&area a~v~riq eaoh lO(180. 

w8 Shdll, Of OOUW, bS glad t0 wOpO~t8 WI$h' 

. 
Hon. Leo C. Hsynes, kroh 15, 1999, Pe(Ze 3 

the Board end tbelr r8pr8sentatlvss and with ths 

Commlssloner 0r the General Land off108 in preperlng 

a proper iorn of order to be used by the Eoerd In 

rOrf8itbIg the lseS8S. 

. 

. 

-: 

. 

.- 

._ 

_~ 

: . ’
---

---

Exhibit 14.1

# Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-12904) pertaining to the
Employees Share Purchase Plan and the Share Incentive Plan of Tikcro Technologies
Ltd. of our report dated June 23, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Tikcro Technologies Ltd. included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the
year ended December 31, 2007.

|June 23, 2008Tel-Aviv, Israel |  | /s/ KOST, FORER GABBAY and KASIERER
KOST, FORER GABBAY and KASIERERA Member of Ernst & Young Global
|----------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---