alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION 

OF ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER L. YOUNG PRO HAC VICE - 1

CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN, P.S.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

524 2nd Ave, Suite 500

Seattle, WA 98104

office 206 587 0700 fax: 206 587 2308

{03846580.DOCX;1 }

CHRISTOPHER L. YOUNG (Pro Hac Vice)

CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN, P.S.

524 2nd Avenue, Suite 500

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone: (206) 254-4492 

Facsimile: (206) 587-2308

E-mail: cyoung@cairncross.com

Attorneys for Winding Creek Solar LLC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION

and 

PACIFIC GAS AND

ELECTRIC COMPANY

Debtors.

Affects both Debtors

*All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-3008 (DM)

NO. 19-30088 (DM)

CHAPTER 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR

ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY

CHRISTOPHER L. YOUNG PRO HAC

VICE

Christopher L. Young, whose address and telephone number are:

Christopher L. Young, WSBA #47977 

CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN, P.S.

524 2nd Avenue, Suite 500

Seattle, WA 98104

Telephone: (206) 254-4492

Facsimile: (206) 587-2308

E-mail: cyoung@cairncross.com

And who is an active member in good standing at the bar of State of Washington having 

applied in the above-entitled action for admission to practice in the Bankruptcy Court for the 

Northern District of California on a pro hac vice basis representing 

Signed and Filed: October 22, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

October 23, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4409 Filed: 10/22/19 Entered: 10/23/19 07:14:46 Page 1 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION

OF ATTORNEY CHRISTOPHER L. YOUNG PRO HAC VICE - 2

CAIRNCROSS & HEMPELMANN, P.S.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

524 2nd Ave, Suite 500

Seattle, WA 98104

office 206 587 0700 fax: 206 587 2308

{03846580.DOCX;1 }

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application of Christopher L. Young is granted, 

subject to the terms and conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must 

indicate appearance pro hac vice. Service of papers upon and communication with co-counsel

designated in the application will constitute notice to the represented party. All future filings in 

this action are subject to the Bankruptcy Local Rule and Electronic Case Filing Procedures

adopted by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California.

*** END OF ORDER ***

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4409 Filed: 10/22/19 Entered: 10/23/19 07:14:46 Page 2 of

2
EXHIBIT 10.1(c)
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
OF LAREDO THEATRE, LTD.
 Amendment Effective Date Manager Owner
  Original Agreement
    Extension of Term
 Ratification




---



##### 



CNMK TEXAS PROPERTIES, L.L.C.By:
    /s/ Michael CavalierName:
    Michael CavalierTitle:
    Senior VP  General CounselLAREDO THEATRE, LTD.By:
    CNMK TEXAS PROPERTIES, LTD.,its General PartnerBy:
    SUNNYMEAD CINEMA CORP.,its General PartnerBy:
    /s/ Alan StockName:
    Alan W. StockTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer 2
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hon. A. P. Pre8twOOd 

County Auditor 

Tyler, Tax&a 

Dear Mr. Fre8twoOd: 

h8 been reosIv 
Hon. A. P. Prestwood, January 25, 1939, Page 2 

Statute8 of Texas provides as follows: 

"In counties oontaining as many as thirtyaeven thousand, five hundred and cjne (37 501) 

and not more than sixty thousand (60,000!, or 

cantsi-fng a city of over twenty-five thousand 

(25,000) inhabitants, district and oounty orrlcers named herein shall retain one-third of 6uoh 

excess fees until suoh one-third, together wlth 

the nmo3nt speaifled in hrtiole 3883, amOUIk.8 

to Forty-two Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($4250). 

Precinat officera shall retain one-third until 

euoh one-third, toeether with the amount speolrled 

In Artlole 3883, amounts to Twenty-two Hundred 

Dollar8 ($%w#,] ." 

You are, therefora, adrlwd that the 8alarle8 of 

~ Juustioee of the Peace and Conatableli of SBlith Coumty are re-‘ 

8peOtiYely, $1,800.00, plus one-third of the r888 eol2eotsd 

In exoess of suoh amount of salary, as provldad la Artlole 

3891 80 that 8uch total 8a.laq 8hall not exoeid the 8111 oi 

$2,200.00. 

We oont~true Article 3891 to mean that ia #i&gnktiag 

the exoe88 refI8 to be allowed the88 OffiOeYSJ it 18 Dot Peralsslble to oompute one-t.IQrd or all feO8 0olleOted but only 

one-third of euoh.reeE! in bXOe88 or and am-0 #1,8W*oo. 

!&at Is%0 say, if the total rees oOlleoted shotid k &,000.00, 

t&e Justioe of Peaoe an4 Oonrtable would be entltled to Fetaln one-third of $1200.00 wbloh would be the 8u~Oi $4W&O, 

thereby aaking the total 8alar and exoe88 fee8 allowed to 

8uoh orrhea to be the ma or 3e ,%00.00. 

Very truly your8 

ATTOW2Y ORMItRAL OF TBXA8 

A88t8taUt 

APPROVED:
#### A. C. Leak, plaintiff in error, *vs.*The Selma, Rome and Dalton Railroad Company, defendant in error.

Under the charter of the Selma, Rome and Dalton Railroad Company, if the writ of *ad quod damnum*provided for by the charter issues to assess the value of land taken by the company for the purposes of its road, and the jury summoned by the sheriff return a verdict for $1,500, from which the road appeals, and the jury in the Superior Court render a verdict of $900 00, the owner of the land must pay the costs of the proceedings on appeal, under those clauses of the charter, which provide that the appealing party must give bond “ conditioned to pay the ■ party appealed against all the costs of the trial tZe *novo,*as well as the costs of the writ of *ad quod damnum,,*in the event that the finding of the jury in the trial *de novo*shall not be more favorable to the appealing party than the finding of the jury under the writ of *ad quod damnum*in the first instance,” and that “ if the trial *do novo*on the appeal shall not he .more favorable to the appealing party than the original trial and verdict, the party appealing shall pay all costs of the whole proceeding;” and again, that “costs shall be paid by the company, except in cases where appeal is taken, in which eases the costs to abide the result of the trial in the Circuit (Superior) Court as hereinabove provided.”

Assessment of damages. Costs. Before Judge Pareott. Whitfield Superior Court. April Term, 1872.

Eor the facts of this case, see the decision.

Johnson *&*McCamy, for plaintiff in error.

Printup & Fouche ; McCutchen *&*Shumate, represented by E. N. Broyles, for defendant.

Montgomery, Judge.

The charter of the Selma, Rome and Dalton Railroad was originally granted by the State of Alabama, and adopted by *346the Legislature of Georgia: Acts of Alabama for 1851-2, pages 349, 350-1.

After providing for the issuing of a writ of *ad quod damnum*by the clerk to the sheriff, to summon seven jurors to assess damages to any one through whose land the road runs, the charter goes on to provide for an appeal by the dissatisfied party to the Circuit (or Superior) Court, where the cause is to be tried *de novo.*The other provisions of the charter pertinent to the issue before us, are quoted in the syllabus, and control the case, compelling us to affirm the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ryan K. Rocker, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 318]

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J), rendered April 30, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted murder in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, *1107criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and unlawful possession of marihuana.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, inter alia, attempted murder in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.27 [1] [a] [i]; [b]). Defendant fired a weapon at the door of his apartment while the police, who identified themselves as such, attempted to gain entry using a battering ram. Defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because County Court failed to instruct the jury on the justification defense as it relates to the defense of a premises during a burglary *(see*§ 35.20 [3]) but, rather, instructed the jury only with respect to the justification defense as it relates to the defense of defendant himself *(see*§ 35.15 [2] [a]). We conclude that defendant waived that contention, inasmuch as the court charged the jury in accordance with defendant’s request to charge the justification defense as it related to defendant, but not as it related to the premises (see *generally People v Matta,*286 AD2d 944, 945 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 731 [2002]).

By failing to specify the basis for his motion to dismiss the indictment at the close of the People’s case, defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the conviction is based upon legally insufficient evidence (see *People v Gray,*86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), and defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 is not sufficient to preserve that contention for our review (see *People v Padro,*75 NY2d 820 [1990], *rearg denied*75 NY2d 1005 [1990], *rearg dismissed*81 NY2d 989 [1993]). In any event, that contention also lacks merit. “[I]nferences of guilt [may] be rationally drawn from proven facts” *(People v Taylor,*94 NY2d 910, 911 [2000]). Here, the People established that the police identified themselves while trying to gain access to defendant’s apartment to execute a search warrant and, while the police were using the battering ram, defendant fired a weapon, striking the door at a point over 51⁄2 feet from the floor. Thus, contrary to the contention of defendant, the evidence is legally sufficient to establish that he intended to cause the death of another person and that he knew or reasonably should have known that such person was a police officer engaged in the course of performing his official duties *(see*Penal Law § 125.27 [1] [a] [i]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Matter of the Marriage of Allison
Marie Collinsworth and Andrew Kimble
Collinsworth and In the Interest of E.C. and B.C., Children

No. 06

- 19

- 00083

- CV Appeal from the C ounty Court at Law of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 18D0999

- CCL ). Opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We further order that the appellant pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 5, 2020
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### Henry Lange and Others, Respondents, v. Manhattan Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. No opinion.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #12199]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of North Carolina, dated 05/28/2010. *Incident:*
                         U.S. Highway 129 Landslide. *Incident Period:*
                         03/14/2010 and continuing.
 DATES: *Effective Date:*
                         05/28/2010. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         02/28/2011.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Graham. *Contiguous Counties:* North Carolina: Cherokee, Macon, Swain. Tennessee: Blount, Monroe. The Interest Rates are: PercentBusinesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 121990. The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are North Carolina, Tennessee. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59002) Dated: May 28, 2010. Karen G. Mills, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2010-13745 Filed 6-8-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
EXHIBIT A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4719-1 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 12:34:18 Page 1

of 2
EXHIBIT A

COMPENSATION BY PROFESSIONAL

FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 2019 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2019

Billing Total Total

Professional Position Rate Hours Fees

Brent Williams Managing Director $ 1,195 272.2 $ 325,279.00

Alex Stevenson Managing Director 1,195 75.2 89,864.00

Brendan Murphy Managing Director 1,095 254.2 278,349.00

Sherman Guillema Director 895 76.6 68,557.00

Peter Gnatowski Vice President 795 275.4 218,943.00

Matt Merkel Associate 695 234.6 163,047.00

Erik Ellingson Associate 695 102.7 71,376.50

Naeem Muscatwalla Senior Analyst 495 91.5 45,292.50

Riley Jacobs Analyst 395 199.4 78,763.00

Alex Gebert Analyst 395 221.2 87,374.00

Zack Stone Analyst 395 132.5 52,337.50

Subtotal 1,935.5 $ 1,479,182.50

Less: 50% Discount for Non-Working Travel Time (17,623.50)

Grand Total $ 1,461,559.00

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4719-1 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 12:34:18 Page 2

of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6734
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PHILLIP JAMES SOFFOS, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CR91-320-S, CA-96-1243-S) Submitted: October 8, 1996 Decided: December 17, 1996 Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phillip James Soffos, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Phillip James Soffos seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accord ingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Soffos , Nos. CR-91-320-S; CA-96-1243-S (D. Md. Apr. 26, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4807 Filed: 11/19/19 Entered: 11/19/19 10:15:40 Page 1 of

1
#### Samantha Enterprises, Inc., Appellant, v Elizabeth Street, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[774 NYS2d 681]

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered October 27, 2003, which, inter aha, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief and canceling the notice of pendency filed by plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff corporation and defendant-respondent are 50% partners in the beneficiary plaintiff, a general partnership. Plaintiff seeks imposition of a constructive trust, declaratory and other equitable relief and reformation of a 2003 deed conveying certain property to defendant-respondent, on the theory that defendant-respondent usurped the general partnership’s opportunity to purchase downtown Manhattan real estate. There is, however, no evidence that the general partnership had a “tangible expectancy” of purchasing the subject realty or that such purchase would have been consistent with its appropriately defined purpose (see *Alexander & Alexander of N.Y. v Fritzen,*147 AD2d 241, 247-248 [1989]). Accordingly, there is no basis to conclude that defendant breached a fiduciary duty to the general partnership *(cf. Schneidman v Tollman,*190 AD2d 524, 525 [1993]), or that there was an implied promise, an essential element of a demand for imposition of a constructive trust (see *Perelman v Traube,*282 AD2d 270 [2001]), or that the deed transferring the property to defendant should be reformed on the ground of constructive fraud *(cf. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v Oseas,*261 App Div 768, 771-772 [1941], *affd*289 NY 731 [1942]). Summary judgment was, therefore, properly granted, and the notice of pendency properly canceled.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
Signed and Filed: November 1, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

November 04, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4559 Filed: 11/01/19 Entered: 11/04/19 09:07:41 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4559 Filed: 11/01/19 Entered: 11/04/19 09:07:41 Page 2 of

2
Exhibit 10.3


 


WAIVER


 


In
consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s
participation in the United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital
Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States
or any state or territory thereof or my employer or any of its directors,
officers, employees and agents for any changes to my compensation or benefits
that are required in order to comply with Section 111(b) of the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, as amended (“EESA”), and rules, regulations, guidance
or other requirements issued thereunder (collectively, the “EESA Restrictions”).


 


I
acknowledge that the EESA Restrictions may require modification of the
employment, compensation, bonus, incentive, severance, retention and other
benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden
parachute” agreements), whether or not in writing, that I have with my employer
or in which I participate as they relate to the period the United States holds
any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital
Purchase Program and I hereby consent to all such modifications.  I further acknowledge and agree that if my
employer notifies me in writing that I have received payments in violation of
the EESA Restrictions, I shall repay the aggregate amount of such payments to
my employer no later than fifteen business days following my receipt of such
notice.


 


This
waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or
any other jurisdiction related to the requirements imposed by the EESA
Restrictions (including without limitation, any claim for any compensation or
other payments or benefits I would otherwise receive absent the EESA
Restrictions, any challenge to the process by which the EESA Restrictions were
adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of the foregoing
on my employment relationship) and I hereby agree that I will not at any time
initiate, or cause or permit to be initiated on my behalf, any such claim
against the United States, my employer or its directors, officers, employees or
agents in or before any local, state, federal or other agency, court or body.


 


In
witness whereof, I execute this waiver on my own behalf, thereby communicating
my acceptance and acknowledgement to the provisions herein.


 


	
   

  	
  Respectfully,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name: [Executive]

  
	
   

  	
  Date:  July 24, 2009

  
			



 


UST
Sequence No. 1251
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5387 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5387

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 14373 Manchester Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Sgt. Zachary 
                        M. Fisher Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2014

Mrs. Wagner (for herself, Mr. Clay, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. 
 Cleaver, Mr. Graves of Missouri, Mr. Long, and Mr. Smith of Missouri) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                    Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 14373 Manchester Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Sgt. Zachary 
                        M. Fisher Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SGT. ZACHARY M. FISHER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14373 Manchester Road in St. Louis, Missouri, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Sgt. Zachary M. Fisher Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Sgt. 
Zachary M. Fisher Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Letter Agreement - Christopher Sells



 Exhibit 10.44 
 HANSEN MEDICAL, INC. 
 July 16, 2009 
 Dear Chris: 
 Hansen Medical, Inc. (the “Company”) is pleased to
inform you that the guaranteed monthly bonus of $16,667 per month, originally provided to you through December 31, 2008 and previously extended through June 30, 2009, has been extended through December 31, 2009. The bonus will be paid
in equal installments (less all applicable withholding and payroll taxes and deductions required by law) pursuant to the Company’s standard payroll schedule, subject to your continuous employment with the Company through each payment date. This
guaranteed bonus is in lieu of a commission plan for fiscal year 2009. 
 Nothing in this letter alters in any way your at-will employment relationship with
the Company and therefore, you and the Company continue to have the right to terminate your employment with the Company at any time and for any reason, with or without cause. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	HANSEN MEDICAL, INC.
	
	/s/ Christopher P. Lowe
	
	/s/ Russell C. Hirsch, M.D., Ph.D.
#### Jacob J. Van Buskirk, Respondent, v. Robert W. Gordon, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.