alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Cliff GREENE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WCI HOLDINGS CORPORATION, J.R. Birle, Co-Chairman, R.B. McKeon, Co-Chairman, S.A. Schwartzman, President and CEO, WCI Holdings II Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-7240.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 17, 2001.

Cliff Greene, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.

Caroline S. Press, N.Y., NY, for appel-lees.

Present KEARSE, JACOBS, and JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

This cause came on to be heard on the record from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and was argued by plaintiff *pro se*and by counsel for defendants.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Edelstein’s Order dated January 24, 2000.

The denial of a motion to vacate a judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ .P. 60(b) is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. *See, e.g., Sampson v. Radio Corporation of America,*434 F.2d 315, 317 (2d Cir .1970). We see no abuse of discretion in the determination here — given the public availability of the information in question years prior to the entry of judgment — that plaintiff’s motion to vacate, filed more than a year after entry of judgment, was not made within a reasonable time as required by Rule 60(b). Plaintiffs contention that his time to move under that Rule was governed by a six-year statute of limitations is without merit. His additional contention that the district judge’s signature may have been invalid is unsubstantiated.

We have considered all of plaintiffs contentions on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SERGEY UTEKHIN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 32 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Keith SHARPE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-1215.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 28, 2011.

Keith Sharpe, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

WOLF, THOMAS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
#### R. C. Claiborne v. B. D. Pickens & Co.

(No. 6547.)

Appeal from Hill County.

Bell & Doane and McKinnon & Carlton, counsel for appellant.

Smith & Wear, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§117. *Venue; of suit against parties jointly liable; if residence of one is known and of other unknown, suit must be brought in county of former’s residence:*Appellees sued appellant and one Kelly in justice’s court on an account for merchandise. Appellant, being a resident of Brown county, pleaded his privilege to be sued in that county. Appellees, at the institution of their suit, al*179leged that the residence of the defendant Kelly was unknown, and service upon him was obtained by publication; and it was by virtue of Kelly being a party defendant that jurisdiction over the person of appellant was claimed and maintained. Appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction of the court over his person was excepted to, and the exception was sustained* and judgment rendered against both defendants in the justice’s court for the amount sued for, and costs, and in the county court on appeal the rulings and judgment were the same.

May 28, 1890.

We are of the opinion that the appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction was sufficient and should have been sustained. It negatives every fact which could have given the court jurisdiction over his person. That the residence of his co-defendant was unknown did not, in our opinion, confer jurisdiction upon the justice’s court of Hill county over appellant’s person. We do not understand the law to be that where two or more persons are jointly liable at the suit of a plaintiff, and some of the defendants are residents of this state, and their residence' is known to the plaintiff, but others of the defendants are non-residents of this state, or their residence is unknown to the plaintiff, that this entitles the plaintiff to sue the resident defendants in a county other than that of their residence. Our understanding of the provisions of the statute is that in such case the suit must be brought in the county where, one of the resident defendants resides. [R. S., art. 1198, subds. 3, 1; art. 1556, subd. 8.] Because the court erred in sustaining the exceptions to appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 Reserve offers opportunities to continue AF careerPublished Jan. 30, 2014
                        
                        By Master Sgt. Shawn J. Jones
                        
                        
                        Air Force Reserve Command Recruiting Service
                **ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. (AFNS) --**
                Airmen who don't want to hang up their uniforms for good during the current period of force management, may find rewarding career opportunities in the Air Force Reserve, recruiting officials said recently.
"Force management will cost many Airmen their jobs, but not necessarily their careers," said Col. Steve Fulaytar, the Reserve's director of recruiting. "They can continue their service as Citizen Airmen."
Service in the Reserve provides a benefits package familiar to most Airmen, such as tuition assistance, the Post 9-11 G.I. Bill and the opportunity to work toward a military retirement plan. Additionally, low-cost health insurance is available to most reservists at significantly lower rates than comparable civilian plans, and enlistment bonuses are available for some career fields at specific duty locations.
Airmen transitioning into the Reserve stand to receive many benefits, but also provide plenty of benefits to the service. New reservists with active-duty experience are valuable to Reserve units because they are mission-ready.
"When an active-duty Airman decides to continue their career in the Reserve, everyone wins," Fulaytar said. "The Airman retains the benefits of continued service, the Reserve gains an Airman who can contribute immediately and the regular Air Force has one less Airman that must be involuntarily separated."
One key difference between active and Reserve service is that reservists won't have to relocate to meet the staffing needs of the Air Force. Many reservists spend the majority of their career with one unit and only agree to a permanent change of station when the timing is right for them.
Airmen who are ready to separate don't have to wait until their original enlistment or commission obligation is complete. The Palace Chase program enables Airmen to separate from their active enlistment or commission as long as they continue their service with the Reserve component.
Airmen should be aware the recruiting process is somewhat different from when they joined the active-duty Air Force. Once Airmen are deemed eligible for Reserve service, they must work with an in-service recruiter to locate a duty location and position that meets their needs.
"Our Reserve units love fully-qualified Airmen who can hit the ground running," Fulaytar said. "But finding duty positions for new recruits takes time, so they can help themselves by contacting their in-service recruiter as soon as possible."
More information is available at www.afreserve.com.Air Force Reserve 



reserve components 



recruiting
Exhibit 10(p)


 


BASE SALARIES OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS


 


As
of December 24, 2008, the following are the base salaries (on an annual
basis) of the executive officers of Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.:


 


	
  Kevork S. Hovnanian

  Chairman of the Board and Director of the Company

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,128,433

  	
   

  
	
  Ara K. Hovnanian

  Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of the Company

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  1,092,606

  	
   

  
	
  Paul W. Buchanan

  Senior Vice President – Chief Accounting Officer

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  287,000

  	
   

  
	
  Peter S. Reinhart

  Senior Vice President and General Counsel

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  307,500

  	
   

  
	
  J. Larry Sorsby

  Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  500,000

  	
   

  
	
  David G. Valiaveedan

  Vice President – Finance

  	
   

  	
  $

  	
  256,250
Cenveo,
Inc.
 One
Canterbury Green
 201
Broad Street, 6th Floor
 Stamford,
CT  06901
 (203)
595-3000
 Fax
(203) 595-3074









February
27, 2008












Mr.
Robert G. Burton


201 Broad
Street








Dear
Bob:




Reference
is made to the employment agreement (the “Employment Agreement”), dated October
27, 2005,  as amended, between you and Cenveo, Inc. (the
“Company”).  This letter agreement (the “Amendment”) will serve to
amend the Employment Agreement in the following respects, effective as of the
date of this letter.  (Capitalized terms not defined in this Amendment
will have the same meaning as in the Employment Agreement.)




1.           The
first sentence of Section 1 (“Terms of Employment”) of the Employment Agreement
is amended to extend the Term of the Employment Agreement by two years by
replacing the date “December 31, 2010,” with the date “December 31,
2012.”









The
Employment Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect.  This
Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which will
constitute an original, and all of which together will constitute one and the
same.




If the
foregoing terms and conditions are acceptable and agreed to by you, please sign
the line provided below to signify such acceptance and agreement and return the
executed copy to the undersigned.









CENVEO,
      INC.By:
              /s/ Patrice M.
      DanielsName:
              Patrice
      M. DanielsTitle:
              Director
      and Chairperson of
                Compensation
      Committee




Accepted
and Agreed this


27th day
of February, 2008.





/s/ Robert G. Burton,
Sr.


Robert G.
Burton, Sr.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1485 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1485

                   For the relief of Esther Karinge.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 2007

  Mr. Markey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Esther Karinge.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ESTHER KARINGE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Esther Karinge shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Esther Karinge enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Esther Karinge, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Esther 
Karinge shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### LPP MORTGAGE LTD., f/k/a Loan Participant Partners, Ltd., etc., Appellant, v. Barbara J. TUCKER, Appellee.

No. 3D09-161.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 10, 2010.

*116Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo, P.A., and Dora F. Kaufman, Miami, for appellant.

Mesa & Associates, and Manuel Arthur Mesa, Miami, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ, C.J., GERSTEN, J., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

*On Motion for Reheating*

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration, we grant appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior opinion dated June 23, 2010, and substitute the following:

LPP Mortgage LTD., etc. (“LPP”) appeals an adverse final summary judgment entered in favor of Barbara J. Tucker (“Tucker”). We reverse.

The Small Business Association (“SBA”) made mortgage loans to certain companies. Tucker executed guaranty agreements on the loans. Subsequently, LPP succeeded to the SBA mortgage. When the borrowers defaulted, LPP filed a foreclosure action against Tucker’s property. The trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of Tucker on the ground that the statute of limitations expired before the action was filed.

On appeal, LPP asserts that the trial court erred in applying a six-year statute of limitations to this foreclosure action. On the other hand, Tucker contends that the trial court applied the correct statute of limitations. We agree with LPP.

A statute of limitations is a procedural statute that prevents the enforcement of a cause of action that has accrued. *See Houck Corp. v. New River, Ltd., Pasco,*900 So.2d 601, 603 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). An assignee of a mortgage acquires the rights and benefits which are available to the assignor. *See, e.g., U.S. Nat’l Assoc. v. Taylor,*30 So.3d 530, 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). This includes the benefit of the statute of limitations applicable to the assignor’s foreclosure action. *See UMLIC VP LLC v. Matthias,*364 F.3d 125 (3d Cir.2004); *LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Hotaling,*497 F.Supp.2d 1217 (D.Colo.2007); *LLP Mortgage Ltd. v. Cravero,*851 So.2d 897 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003).

*117The United States Code provides an unlimited time for the federal government to bring an action to establish the title to, or right of possession of, real or personal property. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2415 (1996). Thus, the courts have determined that the federal government may file to foreclose on mortgaged property at any time. *See, e.g., United States v. Thornburg,*82 F.3d 886, 894 (9th Cir.1996) (“Congress has left no gap in the law concerning the right of the United States to foreclose on a mortgage without being subject to a limitation period.”)

Here, as assignee of a federal government agency, LPP acquired the benefit of the federal government’s unlimited time to foreclose on the mortgaged property. Thus, the trial court erred in finding that LPP was time barred for bringing this foreclosure action against Tucker’s property-

Accordingly, we reverse the final summary judgment, and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

RAMIREZ, C.J., and GERSTEN, J., concur.

SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge,

(dissenting).

I dissent and would adhere to the panel opinion of June 23, 2010.
LA JOLLA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY
Exhibit 32.1




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  
    
    the Quarterly Report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2010 (the Report), which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition of the Registrant at the end of such quarter and the results
of operations of the Registrant for such quarter.
  /s/ Deirdre Y. GillespieDeirdre Y. Gillespie, M.D.President and Chief Executive Officer
[Principal Executive Officer]/s/ Gail A. SloanGail A. SloanChief Financial Officer and Secretary
[Principal Financial Officer] Note:
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to La
Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and will be retained by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### SPENCER v. VIKING YARN MILLS, Inc.

Civ. A. No. 11496.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

Dec. 27, 1951.

*750H. Eugene Heine, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Ned Stein, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

CLARY, District Judge.

Findings of Fact

I. The plaintiff, James Spencer, was employed by the defendant, Viking Yarn Mills, Inc., from October 19, 1948, to January 19, 1949. His wage was $-10 per week for a work week consisting of *7*days a week, 12 hours a day.

2. The defendant, Viking Yam Mills, Inc., is engaged in Interstate Commerce, and the employment of the plaintiff as a fireman and watchman was in Interstate Commerce.

3. The plaintiff worked 44 hours a week overtime during each week of his employment, within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.

4. Defendant’s failure to pay overtime compensation during the period in question was in good faith and with reasonable ground to believe that its act was not in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.

5. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation for overtime employment in the amount of $10.56 a week from October 19, 1948, to January 19, 1949, a total of 13% weeks.

Conclusions of Law

1. The plaintiff, James Spencer, is entitled to basic damages under the Fail-Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, in the amount of $140.34.

2. Under all the facts and circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to .the further sum of $70.17, representing one-half of the sum of the basic damages, as liquidated damages, pursuant to the provisions of 29 U.S.C.A. § 260.

3. Counsel fee in the sum of $100 is awarded to plaintiff’s attorney.
Exhibit 21.1

Fisher Communications, Inc.

Subsidiaries



|                                                          |  |                               
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------
|Subsidiary                                                |  | Jurisdiction in whichOrganized
|Fisher Broadcasting Company                               |  | Washington                    
|Fisher Mills Inc.                                         |  | Washington                    
|Fisher Properties Inc.                                    |  | Washington                    
|Fisher Media Services Company                             |  | Washington                    
|Fisher Radio Regional Group Inc.                          |  | Washington                    
|Fisher Broadcasting  Seattle TV, L.L.C.                  |  | Delaware                      
|Fisher Broadcasting  Seattle Radio, L.L.C.               |  | Delaware                      
|Fisher Broadcasting  Portland TV, L.L.C.                 |  | Delaware                      
|Fisher Broadcasting  Oregon TV, L.L.C.                   |  | Delaware                      
|Fisher Broadcasting  Washington TV, L.L.C.               |  | Delaware                      
|Fisher Broadcasting  Idaho TV, L.L.C.                    |  | Delaware                      
|Fisher Broadcasting  S.E. Idaho TV, L.L.C.               |  | Delaware                      
|Fisher Broadcasting  Bellevue TV, L.L.C.                 |  | Delaware                      
|Fisher Broadcasting  California TV, L.L.C.               |  | Delaware                      
|Fisher Interactive Network, L.L.C.                        |  | Delaware                      
|South West Oregon Television Broadcasting Corporation (1) |  | Delaware                      



|(1) | 50% owned entity.
|--- | -----------------
Exhibit 24


                            SOUTH JERSEY GAS COMPANY
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


         Each of the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer or director, or
both, as the case may be, of South Jersey Gas Company, a New Jersey corporation,
does hereby appoint Charles Biscieglia, David A. Kindlick and Richard H. Walker,
Jr., and each of them, severally, as his or her true and lawful attorneys or
attorney to execute in his or her name, place and stead, in his or her capacity
as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of said corporation, its
Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 on Form 10-K, pursuant
to Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and any and all amendments
thereto and instruments necessary or incidental in connection therewith, and to
file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission; and does hereby
provide that each of said attorneys shall have power to act hereunder with or
without the other said attorneys, and shall have full power of substitution and
resubstitution and that each of said attorneys shall have full power and
authority to do and perform in the name and on behalf of the undersigned in any
and all capacities every act whatsoever required to be done in the premises, as
fully and to all intents and purposes as he or she might or could do in person,
hereby ratifying and approving the acts of said attorneys and each of them.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this instrument, this
13th day of March 2003.





/s/ Charles Biscieglia
-------------------------------------------
Charles Biscieglia, Chief Executive Officer



/s/ Shirli M. Billings
-------------------------------------------
Shirli M. Billings, Director



/s/ Sheila Hartnett-Devlin
-------------------------------------------
Sheila Hartnett-Devlin, Director



/s/ Clarence D. McCormick
-------------------------------------------
Clarence D. McCormick, Director



/s/ Frederick R. Raring
-------------------------------------------
Frederick R. Raring, Director



/s/ William J. Hughes
-------------------------------------------
William J. Hughes, Director




                              - Page -


                                                                    Exhibit 24


Power of Attorney - 10-K                                           Page 2 of 2





/s/ Edward J. Graham
-------------------------------------------
Edward J. Graham, President



/s/ Richard H. Walker, Jr.
-------------------------------------------
Richard H. Walker, Jr., Corporate
Secretary & Corporate Counsel



/s/ David A. Kindlick
-------------------------------------------
David A. Kindlick, Executive Vice
President & Chief Financial Officer