alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Rothchild *v.*Wilson *et al.*

*(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York, County.*

December, 1889.)

1. Costs—Security—Defendants Appearing Separately.

Under Code Civil Proc. N. T. § 3373, providing that “the undertaking * * * must be executed to the defendant, ” several defendants cannot appear separately, and require a non-resident plaintiff to give a separate undertaking to secure the costs of each.

2. Same—Undertaking—Piling without Leave of Court.

Where an undertaking to secure costs is regular in all respects except that it was filed without leave of court, and without giving defendants an opportunity to be heard as to the amount thereof, such undertaking will not be approved, but leave will be given to plaintiff to apply for an order to show cause why he should not be permitted to file a sufficient undertaking.

At chambers. Plaintiff being a non-resident, and there being numerous defendants, a motion was made to require plaintiff to furnish separate undertakings to secure each defendant, in lieu of an undertaking given by plaintiff to secure all the defendants.

*JETorioitz & Hirshfteld,*for plaintiff. *Wilder, Wilder & Lynch,*for defendant Wilson. *Burnett & Whitney,*for defendant Lane.

Lawrence; J.

Where the plaintiffs are non-residents, and there are two or more defendants, they cannot appear separately, and each require a bond to him as security for his costs. The statute1 requires only one bond, which should run to the defendants, and is for the benefit of them all. *Leftwick*v. *Clinton,*26 How. Pr. 26. That case was decided under the old Code, and counsel have not referred me to any ease which modifies or qualifies that decision.

*62In these cases, it appears that an order was granted *ex parte,*on the motion of the defendant Wilson, requiring the plaintiff to give an undertaking in the sum of $250, to be applied to the payment of the costs awarded against the plaintiff to the said defendant Peter K. Wilson. That order has not been complied with. The undertaking given on the 12th of October, 1889, being given to all defendants, and, having been excepted to by them as to form and sufficiency, was not in compliance with that order. The undertakings now under consideration were filed voluntarily, without leave of the court, on the 2d of December instant, and are in the sum of $1,000 each, to secure the costs of all the defendants. This undertaking is correct in form, but, having been filed without leave of the court, and without giving the other party an opportunity to be heard as to the amount of the undertaking, I cannot approve o£ the same; but leave will be given to the plaintiff to apply for an order t® show cause why they should not have leave to file an undertaking in the sum of $1,000 to secure the defendants for all costs which may be awarded to them, in the action.

1

 Code Civil Proc. N. *Y.*§ 3273, provides that “the undertaking * * * must be executed to the defendant ” etc.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GEYEL BEDOLLA

- BALBUENA,

Petitioner,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 70152

Agency No. A205

- 299

- 631

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 29, 2022 * * Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Geyel Bedolla

- Balbuena petitions for review of a decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of an immigration

judge denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Agai nst Torture (CAT). We dismiss in part and deny in part

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

AUG 31 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction t o review Bedolla

- Balbuena ’s challenge to the BIA’s

determination that his asylum application was untimely. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3) ;
Lanza v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 917, 924 (9th Cir. 2004) ( “ Our jurisdiction to review a

rejection of an asylum application as untimely

. . . is precluded by statute. ”). The

petition is dismissed in part on jurisdictional grounds.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Bedolla

- Balbuena

does not qualify for withholding of removal. Bedolla

- Balbuena’s proposed social

group o f “those recently arriving from the United States,” is not cognizable. See

Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151

– 52 (9th Cir. 2010) (“‘[R]eturning

Mexicans from the United States,’ . . . is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social

group.”).

Sub stantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Bedolla

- Balbuena

failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. T he record does not compel the

conclusion “that it is more likely than not,” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 , that Bedolla

Balbuena, if returned to Mex ico, would be tortured “with the consent or

acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting

in an official capacity,” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18

.
Because Bedolla

- Balbuena’s CAT claim fails on the merits, so does the due

pro cess claim

. See Lata v. I.N.S. , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring3

error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
# C_2021087EN.01000701.xml

| 15.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 87/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 87/7

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10163 — United Internet/Morgan Stanley/Tele Columbus)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 87/05)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | United Internet AG (‘United Internet’, Germany), the parent company of the United Internet Group. |
| --- | --- |

—

United Internet AG (‘United Internet’, Germany), the parent company of the United Internet Group.

| — | Morgan Stanley (‘Morgan Stanley’, United States). |
| --- | --- |

—

Morgan Stanley (‘Morgan Stanley’, United States).

| — | Tele Columbus AG (‘Tele Columbus’, Germany). |
| --- | --- |

—

Tele Columbus AG (‘Tele Columbus’, Germany).

United Internet and Morgan Stanley indirectly acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Tele Columbus.

The concentration is accomplished by way of sales and purchases of shares following a voluntary public takeover offer for all outstanding shares in Tele Columbus.

2.

| — | for United Internet: globally active provider of telecommunications and Internet services for consumers, small and home offices as well as small-to-medium-sized companies. |
| --- | --- |

—

for United Internet: globally active provider of telecommunications and Internet services for consumers, small and home offices as well as small-to-medium-sized companies.

| — | for Morgan Stanley: global financial services firm providing a wide range of investment banking, securities, wealth management and investment management services. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Morgan Stanley: global financial services firm providing a wide range of investment banking, securities, wealth management and investment management services.

| — | for Tele Columbus: broadband cable network operator that provides multimedia and fixed telecommunications services in Germany. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Tele Columbus: broadband cable network operator that provides multimedia and fixed telecommunications services in Germany.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10163 — United Internet/Morgan Stanley/Tele Columbus

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

---
# Discursos, Declaraciones y Testimonios

El liderato de USCIS testifica frecuentemente ante el Congreso y habla con varias organizaciones sobre los programas y prioridades de la agencia. Publicaremos enlaces a testimonios y discursos recientes, pero también puede usar la función de búsqueda para encontrar contenido de años anteriores.

Declaraciones de Ur M. Jaddou como Nueva Directora del Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos

04 de agosto de 2021

Declaraciones de la Directora Interina de USCIS, Tracy Renaud, Respecto a la Decisión Judicial sobre la Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA)

19 de julio de 2021

Declaraciones de la Directora Interina de USCIS, Tracy L. Renaud, con Motivo del Día Mundial de los Refugiados 21 de junio de 2021

17 de junio de 2021

Declaraciones de la Directora Interina de USCIS, Tracy Renaud sobre las Decisiones de Hoy del DOJ sobre Asilo

16 de junio de 2021

Declaraciones de Tracy L. Renaud, Directora Interina del Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de Estados Unidos, en Conmemoración del Mes de la Herencia del Inmigrante

16 de junio de 2021

1 - 5 líneas en total

-  Previa
- Próxima 

0 / 2000Para proteger su privacidad, por favor no incluya ninguna información personal en sus comentarios. Revise nuestra Política de Privacidad.
(September 4, 1987)

#### Clients’ Security Fund of The State of New York, Appellant, v Barry J. Grandeau, Defendant, and Michael T. Dahowski, Respondent.

Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, without costs. No issue of fact was considered by this court. Pursuant to CPLR 5713, this court certifies that the following question of law, decisive of the correctness of its determination, has arisen, which in its opinion, ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals: "Did this court err as a matter of law, in modifying the order and judgment of the Supreme Court by reversing so much thereof as granted defendant Michael T. Dahowski’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him, denying said motion and, as so modified, affirming the order and judgment?” Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
# Historias de Éxito de Receptores de Subsidios

Los receptores de subsidios de USCIS han demostrado creatividad e innovación impresionantes para promover la ciudadanía y la integración de inmigrantes en sus comunidades locales. Estas historias de éxito representan las mejores prácticas e indicaciones para ayudar a mejorar cualquier programa que provee el importante trabajo de la asimilación de inmigrantes, asumido por los receptores de subsidios de USCIS a través del país.

Aprenda acerca de formas creativas para expandir la instrucción en ciudadanía.
                    - Programa de Tutorías de Ciudadanía en el Hogar
                    - Ciudadanía por Medio del Arte
                    - Aprender sobre la vida en Estados Unidos
                    - Recorrido por la Historia de EE.UU.
                    - Instrucción en Ciudadanía por Medio de Programas de Escuela Superior
                    - Crear un Sitio Web de Clases de Ciudadanía
                    - Incorporar Entrevistas Simuladas en el Salón de Clases
                    - Reclutar Estudiantes de Derecho Voluntarios para Ayudar a Estudiantes de Ciudadanía a Prepararse para la Entrevista de Naturalización

Comience una conversación para ayudar a sus estudiantes a mejorar sus destrezas orales en inglés.
                    - Conversar con Cadetes de West Point en un Intercambio Cultural Inglés y Ruso
                    - Preparar a los Estudiantes a Interactuar con el Gobierno
                    - Mejorar el Inglés al Hablar por Teléfono

Las personas en Estados Unidos tienen una fuerte tradición de voluntariado y compromiso en la vida cívica estadounidense. Anime a sus alumnos a ser voluntarios.
                    - Desarrollar el espíritu del voluntariado en nuevos ciudadanos
                    - Celebrar la Ciudadanía con el Distrito de la Escuela Unificada de Fresno

Aprenda sobre maneras innovadoras para apoyar a sus estudiantes al ofrecer servicios adicionales.
                    - Servicios legales de Naturalización en el Salón de Clases
                    - Encontrar Ayuda por Medio de un Navegador

06/10/2020

0 / 2000Para proteger su privacidad, por favor no incluya ninguna información personal en sus comentarios. Revise nuestra Política de Privacidad.
# Green Card for a Broadcaster

Noncitizens (and their spouses and children) who are coming to work in the United States as a broadcaster for United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), or for a grantee of the USAGM, may apply for a Green Card (permanent residence). The term “broadcaster” may include a reporter, writer, translator, editor, producer, announcer, news broadcast host, news analysis, editorial and other broadcasting features, or a news analysis specialist. The term broadcaster does not include noncitizens performing purely technical or support services or working in the entertainment field.

There is an annual limit of 100 visas per year in this category. Spouses and children are not counted towards this limit.

For more information, see Section 101(a)(27)(M), 203(b)(4) of the Immigration Nationality Act (INA) and 8 CFR 204.13.

You may be eligible to obtain a Green Card as a broadcaster with the USAGM if:
                    - You have an approved  Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), and Special Immigrant , that was filed on your behalf by the USAGM or a USAGM grantee;
                    - You are admissible to the United States; and
                    - An immigrant visa is immediately available to you.

**If You Live Outside the United States**

The USAGM or it's grantee must first file Form I-360. If we approve your Form I-360, we will forward the approved petition to the Department of State for consular processing of the special immigrant visa. For more information, see the “Consular Processing” webpage.

**If You Live Inside the United States**

The USAGM or its grantee must file Form I-360. If we approve your Form I-360, you must file Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.

See the Checklist of Required Initial Evidence section of our Form I-485 page to see what evidence you must submit.

Your spouse and unmarried children under the age of 21, (known as “derivatives”) may be included on your immigration petition. If they are residing in the United States, they will each need to file a Form I-485. 

Generally, when you have a pending Form I-485, it is possible for you to apply for authorization to work in the United States and to seek advance parole (advance permission to travel and be admitted to the United States upon your return). For further information, see the Work Authorization and Travel Documents webpages.

10/29/2020

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          52,750
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,456
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,349
<PP&E>                                          19,045
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,746
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,749
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           125
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,872
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,746
<SALES>                                         16,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,352
<CGS>                                            3,036
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,781
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   458
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,585
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,147
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,438
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,438
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.8(e)






Exhibit 10.8(e)




ELEVENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




THIS ELEVENTH AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of the 30th day of March,
2010 to that certain EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of November 30, 1999, as heretofore amended
(collectively, the “Employment Agreement”), by and between ROBERT HENSLEY (“Employee”) and JOS. A.
BANK CLOTHIERS, INC. (“Employer”).



FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby
acknowledged, Employer and Employee, being the sole parties to the Employment Agreement, hereby
amend the Employment Agreement and agree as follows:



1. Subject to earlier termination otherwise set forth in the Employment Agreement, the last
day of the Employment Period shall be January 28, 2012.



2. Effective on the day on which general salary increases, if any, become effective for other
employees of the Employer for fiscal 2010, Employee’s Base Salary shall be $490,000.



Except as specifically amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect according to its terms. To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment
and the terms of the remainder of the Employment Agreement, the terms of this Amendment shall
control and prevail. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have those respective
meanings attributed to them in the Employment Agreement. This Amendment shall hereafter be deemed a
part of the Employment Agreement for all purposes. The terms of employment set forth in this
Amendment have been approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Employer.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first above
written.



JOS. A. BANK CLOTHIERS, INC.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ CHARLES D. FRAZER
	 	 	 	/s/ ROBERT HENSLEY
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Charles D. Frazer,
	 	 	 	ROBERT HENSLEY
	 

	 	Senior Vice President—General Counsel
#### Hardy *et al.*v. Gunn.

Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court.

Tried before the Hon. George E. Brewer.

Knox, Bowie & Pelham, W. S. Cary and A. P. Longshore, for appellants.

Browne & Deeper and W. R. Oliver, for appellee.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was an action of ejectment brought by the appellee, James H. Gunn, against J. D. Hardy and Louvisa Hardy, to recover- certain lands specifically described in the complaint.

There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendants appeal and assign as error-the giving of the general affirmative charge requested by the plaintiff. ■■

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
EXHIBIT 10.1

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



To the Shareholders of CeNeS Pharmaceuticals plc:

      We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of CeNeS
Pharmaceuticals plc (a Company incorporated in Scotland) as of December 31, 2000
and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations and
comprehensive losses, statements of changes in shareholders' equity and cash
flows for the year ended August 31, 1999, and the four months ended December 31,
1999 and the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001. These financial statements
are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. As
explained in note 2, the financial statements have not been prepared for the
purposes of Section 226 of the Companies Act 1985.

      We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally
accepted in the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements
are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

      In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly,
in all material respects, the financial position of CeNeS Pharmaceuticals plc as
of December 31, 2000 and 2001, and the results of its operations and its cash
flows for the year ended August 31, 1999, the four months ended December 31,
1999 and the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States.




/s/ Arthur Andersen



Arthur Andersen
Cambridge, England

Date:  July 10, 2002



                                       1
exv10w3wa






Exhibit 10.3(a)



June 9, 2009




Graham Capital Management, L.P.

Rock Ledge Financial Center

40 Highland Avenue

Rowayton, CT 06853


Attention: Mr. Paul Sedlack




     Re: Management Agreement Renewals



Dear Mr. Sedlack:



We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which
reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management
Agreements through June 30, 2010 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain
unchanged.





	 	•	 	Citigroup Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. II
	 
	 	•	 	Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II
	 
	 	•	 	CMF Graham Master Fund L.P.




Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it
to the attention of Ms. Jennifer Magro at the address above or fax to 212-793-1986. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-559-5046.



Very truly yours,



CITIGROUP MANAGED FUTURES LLC




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Jennifer Magro
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Jennifer Magro	 	 
	 

	 	Chief Financial Officer & Director	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	GRAHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.

	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Paul Sedlack	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	Print Name: Paul Sedlack	 	 






JM/sr