alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Lorigo v Masullo 2024 NY Slip Op 30590(U) February 27, 2024 Supreme Court, Erie County

Docket Number: Index No. 807046/2023 Judge: Dennis E. Ward Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001 (U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      42,761,531
<SECURITIES>                                 5,016,618
<RECEIVABLES>                                  748,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            49,688,053
<PP&E>                                       3,538,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                 505,285
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              54,115,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,246,202
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,891
<OTHER-SE>                                  49,952,671
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                54,115,024
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,570,500
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,073,244
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,237,451
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             135,821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,444,174)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,444,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,444,174)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4817 

To allow postal patrons to contribute to funding for gang prevention programs 

through the voluntary purchase of certain specially issued postage stamps. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2014 

Ms. KELLY of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the 

Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined 

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To allow postal patrons to contribute to funding for gang 

prevention programs through the voluntary purchase of 

certain specially issued postage stamps. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stamp Out Violence 

5 In Our Communities Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. SPECIAL POSTAGE STAMP. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—In order to afford a convenient 

8 way for members of the public to contribute to funding 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4817 IH

1 for gang prevention programs, the United States Postal 

2 Service shall provide for a special postage stamp in accord3 ance with subsection (b). 

4 (b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The issuance and sale 

5 of the stamp referred to in subsection (a) shall be gov6 erned by section 416 of title 39, United States Code, and 

7 regulations under such section, subject to the following: 

8 (1) DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS.—All amounts 

9 becoming available from the sale of such stamp shall 

10 be transferred to the Gang Resistance Education 

11 and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Program, administered 

12 by the Office of Justice Programs of the Depart13 ment of Justice, through payments which shall be 

14 made at least twice a year. 

15 (2) DURATION.—Such stamp shall be made 

16 available to the public for a period of at least 2 

17 years, beginning no later than 12 months after the 

18 date of the enactment of this Act. 

19 (3) LIMITATION.—Such stamp shall not be 

20 counted for purposes of applying any numerical limi21 tation under subsection (e)(1)(C) of such section. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.28  October 28, 2008  Mr. Kenneth I. Juster 188 Minna Street San Francisco, CA 84105  Re:      AGREEMENT FOR A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF BUSINESS ADVISORS  Dear Ken:  This document is intended to memorialize the amendment of your AGREEMENT FOR A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF BUSINESS ADVISORS, dated July 16, 2007 and modified on August 16, 2007.  Our signatures below confirm that we have agreed to modify the above referenced agreement only as described below as follows:  1.       Term  Provision (b) as originally written has been deleted in its entirety and is amended to read as follows:  Both parties agree to extend the contact under the same terms and conditions, as amended, for a fourth year. However, both parties may terminate the contract for any reason in accordance with provision 5.  3.       Compensation and Benefits provision (a).  The provision, as originally written has been deleted in its entirety and is amended to read as follows:  (a) Advisors Fee (the Advisors Fee).  In consideration of the services to be rendered under this Agreement, Company shall provide to Advisor a non-employee Advisors Fee of the equivalent of four million (4,000,000) shares of Sunovia  Energy Technologies, Inc. restricted common stock as follows: upon the Effective Date, one million (1,000,000) shares of Sunovia Energy Technologies, Inc. restricted common stock that shall vest immediately upon issuance, and the remainder as follows: Advisor will become a member of CRACA, owning .6% (six tenths of one percent), on the terms and conditions provided in the CRACA Operating Agreement, as amended. Juster agrees to execute and deliver counterpart to the amended CRACA Operating Agreement dated as of October 27, 2008. Sunovia Represents and warrants that CRACA holds an option to purchase 500,000,000 shares of Sunovia at $.10 per share and that Justers interest in CRACA is the equivalent of 3,000,000 SUNOVIA common shares vesting one-third (1/3) as of the signing of this amendment, one third (1/3) on July 16, 2009, and the remainder on July 16, 2010, in each case provided that Advisor remains an advisor to the Company on the applicable vesting date.   Furthermore, both parties acknowledge that in November and December, 2007, Sun Energy Solar, Inc. entered into a series of transactions known as a reverse merger that resulted in the changing of name of Sun Energy Solar to Sunovia Solar, Inc. and the contract has been assumed by Sunovia Solars parent, Sunovia Energy Technologies, Inc.           APPROVED AND AGREED:  DATE: Kenneth I. Juster   _____________           ____________________________    DATE:                              Sunovia Energy Technologies, Inc.     _____________           ____________________________ Carl L. Smith Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  .
Order entered July 10, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00328-CR

CHRISTINA MARIE EMMERT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1000776-Y

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.
 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental record, containing the written 

findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. It shall be 

reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental record is received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of the Application of George W. Will and others, etc.

That part of the order directing that the respondents be brought into the action as parties plaintiff is reversed and that part of the motion denied, but in all other respects the order is affirmed, without costs to either party Opinions by

Follett, J., and Van Brunt, P., J.
#### Doctors Hospital of Staten Island, Plaintiff, v Amanda Curtis et al., Defendants.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Special Term, Richmond County,

April 6, 1987

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Michael L. Kohl*for plaintiff. *Amanda Curtis,*defendant *pro se.*

OPINION OF THE COURT

Alexander Graves, J.

In this motion for summary judgment against defendant Amanda Curtis for hospital services rendered to her husband, defendant Alfred Curtis, plaintiff rests its legal case exclusively on Domestic Relations Law § 32, which, it is alleged, provides that a wife is liable for the support of her husband. The provisions of said section 32, insofar as here applicable, are as follows:

"For the purpose of this article, the following persons * * * are declared to be liable for the support of dependents * * * and, if possessed of sufficient means or able to earn such *72means, may be required to pay for such support a fair and reasonable sum, as may be determined by the court having jurisdiction of the respondent in a proceeding instituted under this article * * *

"2. Wife liable for support of her husband”.

Domestic Relations Law § 31 defines "court” as meaning the Family Court of the State of New York and including certain other courts in other States.

While it may be true as a general principle that a wife is liable for the support of her husband, it is clear that the obligation is a limited one and may be enforced in a proceeding brought by the husband in Family Court under the Uniform Support of Dependents Law. Plaintiff has attempted, by lifting a few words from the statute without regard to its other provisions, to make the wife automatically obligated for the husband’s hospital bill on no basis other than that she is his wife. Such an attempt must fail.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is denied and, under the authority of CPLR 3212 (b), defendant Amanda Curtis shall have summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint.
Exhibit 31.4
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Sunrise Senior
Living, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report; and3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report.
 Date: October 15, 2008
    
    /s/ Richard J. NadeauRichard J. NadeauChief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 29585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12637]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States v. 
Semitropic Water Storage Dist., Civil No. 1:10-cv-909-AWI-JLT, was 
lodged with the United States District Court for the Eastern District 
of California on May 20, 2010.
    This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the 
United States against Defendant Semitropic Water Storage District, 
pursuant to Sections 301 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311 
and 1344 to obtain injunctive relief and impose civil penalties against 
the Defendant for violating the Clean Water Act by discharging fill 
material into waters of the United States. The proposed Consent Decree 
resolves these allegations by requiring the Defendant to pay a civil 
penalty. In addition, Defendant has agreed to pay a fee in lieu of 
mitigation of $78,000, for its impacts to waters of the United States. 
The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to this 
proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Sylvia Quast, 
Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, 
Eastern District of California, 501 I Street, Suite 10-100, Sacramento, 
California and refer to United States v. Semitropic Water Storage 
Dist., Civil No. 1:10-cv-909-AWI-JLT.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office 
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
California, 501 I Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, California 95814. In 
addition, the proposed Consent Decree may be viewed at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

Maureen M. Katz,
Assistant Section Chief, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-12637 Filed 5-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
#### MABEL A. HUNTER, NINA HUNTER THOMSON and Husband, W. FRANK THOMSON, and CORA D. HUNTER v. AMERICAN TRUST COMPANY, a Corporation, Trustee Under the Will of BAXTER ROSS HUNTER; and CHARLES W. BUNDY, Guardian ad Litem for FRANCES ANNE THOMSON, Infant Daughter of NINA HUNTER THOMSON, and Guardian ad Litem for the Unborn Child or Children of NINA HUNTER THOMSON.

(Filed 3 May, 1950.)

Executors and Administrators § 24—

A valid contract compromising a family dispute over the validity of a will and providing for the distribution of the estate in a manner other than that specified in the will, is enforcible in equity under the doctrine of family settlements, and when all persons having any interest in the estate are parties to the contract and are *sui juris,*it is a valid contract enforceable at law.

Appeal by the defendants, Charles *W.*Bundy, Guardian *ad litem,*and American Trust Company, Trustee under the will of Baxter Ross Hunter, from *Crisp, Special Judge,*at the March Term, 1950, of the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants to enforce a contract made in December, 1949, compromising a family dispute over the validity of the will of the late Baxter Ross Hunter of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and providing for the distribution of his estate among all persons having any claim thereto in a manner other than that specified in the will. The parties waived trial by jury. After hearing the evidence, the court made detailed findings of fact and appropriate conclusions of law, and entered judgment thereon approving and enforcing the contract. The defendants, Charles *W.*Bundy, Guardian *ad litem,*and American Trust Company, Trustee under the will of Baxter Ross Hunter, appealed, assigning errors.

*Orr & Ilovis for plaintiffs, appellees.*

*Charles W. Bundy for the defendant, Charles W. Bundy, Guardian ad litem, appellant.*

*Henry JS. Fisher for the defendant, American Trust Company, Trustee under the will of Baxter Boss Hunter, appellant.*

EeviN, J.

The trial court rightly ruled that the infant, Frances Anne Thomson, and the unborn child or children of the plaintiff, Nina Hunter Thomson, have no interest whatever in the estate of Baxter Ross Hunter. The judgment finds full support in decisions upholding family settlements. *Bohannon v. Trotman,*214 N.C. 706, 200 S.E. 852; *Trust Co. v.*
      *70
      *Wade,*211 N.C. 27, 188 S.E. 611; *Reynolds v. Reynolds,*208 N.C. 578, 182 S.E. 341; *Spencer v. McCleneghan,*202 N.C. 662, 163 S.E. 753; *Tise v. Hicks,*191 N.C. 609, 132 S.E. 560; *Bailey v. Wilson,*21 N.C. 182.

Moreover, it is proper even apart from the doctrine of family settlements ; for it appears that the contract was made in good faith to settle a dispute between the parties as to the validity of the will of the testator; that all persons having any interest in the estate are parties to the contract; and that all of such persons are *sui juris.*57 Am. Jur., Wills, section 995. For these reasons, the judgment is

Affirmed.
# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No . 1 8 -3 5 70

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Un i t ed St at es o f Am eri ca

l ll l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l Pl a i n t i

f f - Ap pel l ee

v

.
M arcu s Derb y

l ll l l l l l l l l l l l ll l l l l l Def

en da n t - Ap pel l an t

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Ap p eal fro m

Un i t ed St at es Di s t ri ct Co u rt fo r t h e W es t ern Di s t ri ct o f Ark an s as - Fay et t ev i l le

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Su bm i t t ed : Sep tem

ber 2 3 , 2 0 1 9 Fi l ed : No v em

b er 4 , 2 0 1 9 [Un pu b l is h ed ]

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Befo re KELLY, M ELLOY, an d STRAS, Ci rcu i t J u d g es

.

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ PER CURIAM

.

M arcu s D erb y recei v ed a wi t h i n -Gu i d el i n es -ran g e, 9 6 -m o n t h p ri s on s en t en ce aft er p l ead i n g gu i l t y t o co n s p i racy t o d i s t ri b u t e co cai n e. 2 1 U.S.C. § § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ), 8 4 6. On ap p eal , Derb y arg u es t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt 1 erro neo u s l y d en i ed h i m a m i n o r1 Th e Ho n o rab le T i m o t h y L. Bro o ks , Un i t ed St at es Di s t ri ct J u d g e fo r t h e W es t ern Di s t ri ct o f Ark an s as

.p art i ci p an t ad ju st m en t

. See U

. S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2 (b ). Derb y was a s u pp l i er o f d ru g s d i s t ri b u t ed i n t h e co n s pi racy

. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo u n d t h at , al t ho u g h Derb y was l es s

cu l p ab l e t han t h e t wo l ead ers o f t h e d ru g t raffi ck i n g o rg an i zat i o n , h e was n ot

s u b s t an t i al l y l es s cu l p ab l e t h an t h e av erag e p art i ci p an ts , m an y o f wh o m were s t reet

l ev el d eal ers

. At s en t en c i n g , t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt co m m en t ed t h at i t m ay hav e n ev er h eard arg u m en t fo r a m i n o r-ro le ad j u s tm en t m ad e f

o r an u p s t ream s u p p l i er. Reg ard les s , we ag ree wi t h th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g t hat D erb y ca n n o t q u al i fy fo r

a m i n o r ro l e ad

ju s tm en t gi v en t h e fact s o f t h i s cas e, see Un it ed St at es v. Cu b i l l o s , 4 7 4 F.3 d 1 1 1 4 , 1 1 2 0 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 7 ); Un i t ed St at es v

. T h o m p so n , 6 0 F.3 d 5 14 , 5 1 7 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 9 5 ), an d we fi n d n o cl ear erro r in t h e d i st ri ct co u rt ’ s ru l i n g , Un i t ed St at es v. Bro w n , 9 2 9 F.3 d 1 03 0 , 10 4 1 (8 t h Ci r. 2 0 1 9 ) (s t an d ard o f rev i ew). Acco rd i n g l y , we affi rm th e ju dg m en t o f t h e d i s tri ct co u rt

. See 8 t h Ci r. R. 4 7 B.

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

-2

-
Order entered May 15, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00422-CV

IN RE PETER BEASLEY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-05278

ORDER

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus. 

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Immer Jonathan a/k/a Immer Perez * From the 35 th District Court

a/k/a Immer Najera, of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CR22632

.

Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00319

- CR * November 30 , 2016

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s o pinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.