alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Andrew P. Moffatt, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Dispatch Transportation Corp., Appellant, v JP Morgan Chase Bank, Respondent.

[972 NYS2d 39]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered January 10, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action for fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, suing, individually and derivatively on behalf of Dispatch Transportation Corp. (DTC), alleges that defendant, through one of its employees, aided his former business partner and 50% shareholder of DTC, Jud Gittelman, in changing the number of required signatories on the signature cards so as to enable Gittelman to embezzle funds from DTC’s bank accounts by issuing checks to himself. Plaintiff further alleges that it was his understanding that his signature and Gittelman’s signature were required in order to issue checks from the accounts.

Plaintiff failed to properly plead a cause of action for fraud by failing to allege any misrepresentation or material omission of fact made by defendant or its employee *(see Art Capital Group, LLC v Neuhaus,*70 AD3d 605, 607 [1st Dept 2010]). In any event, neither misrepresentation or justifiable reliance can be shown since Moffatt’s admission that he signed the signature cards negates his contention that the signatures are not genuine and that he was not aware of the execution of the signature *432cards. In addition, neither the allegations in the complaint nor the surrounding circumstances give rise to a reasonable inference that defendant’s employee possessed fraudulent intent in executing the new signature cards *(see e.g. Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP,*12 NY3d 553, 559 [2009]). Concur— Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and Clark, JJ.
SVR-6.30.15-EX10.1








SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 
2011 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN 
OF SYNIVERSE CORPORATION




This SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE 2011 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN OF SYNIVERSE CORPORATION (this "Amendment "), dated as of May 20, 2015, is made and adopted by Syniverse Corporation , a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), subject to the approval of the stockholders of the Company. Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the Plan (as defined below).


RECITALS


WHEREAS, the Company maintains the 2011 Equity Incenti ve Plan of Syniverse Corporation, adopted as of April 6, 2011 and amended on August 16, 201 3 (the "Plan");


WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan as set forth herein; and


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Plan, the Plan may be amended at any time and from time to time by the Administrator;


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that, subject to the approval of the stockholders of the Company, the Plan shall be amended as follows:


l.    Exhibit A of the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows: "14,291,667"


2.    This Amendment shall be effective as of the first date set forth above, subject to its approval by the stockholders of the Company.


3.    Subject to approval by the stockholders of the Company, this Amendment shall be incorporated in and form a part of the Plan.


4.    Except as set forth herein, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect following the date of this Amendment.






[signature page follows]













I hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment was adopted by the Board of Directors of Syniverse Corporation as of May 20, 2015.










* * * * *






I hereby certify that the foregoing Amendment was approved by the stockholders of Syniverse Corporation as of May 20, 2015.














Executed as of May 20, 2015.






	
	
	SYNIVERSE CORPORATION

	 

	By: /s/ Laura E. Binion

	Laura E. Binion

	General Counsel and Secretary
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo Nolberto PENA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-7411.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.

Decided Dec. 28, 2007.

*568Domingo Nolberto Pena, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Domingo Nolberto Pena seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis, and a subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pena has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Pena’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Pena’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID HANCOCK, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 2:09-00026-KD-N

)

JAMES HOOD, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to

the issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Local

Rule 72.2(c)(1), and dated January 25, 2010, is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court

with the exception of footnote seven which is STRICKEN. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 

(1) the motion to dismiss filed by Dr. Brian S. Claytor (doc. 34) is GRANTED as

follows: All claims asserted against Dr. Claytor are DISMISSED with prejudice except

the claim under the Alabama Medical Liabilities Act, Ala. Code § 6-5-484 (1975)

asserted against Dr. Claytor in Count Five of the Third Amended Complaint, which is

DISMISSED without prejudice; 

(2) the alternative motion to transfer filed by Dr. Claytor (doc. 34) is DENIED; 

(3) the motion to dismiss filed by Perry County Sheriff James Hood (doc. 39) is 

Case 2:09-cv-00026-KD-N Document 65 Filed 02/18/10 Page 1 of 2
GRANTED and the claims asserted against Sheriff Hood are DISMISSED with

prejudice; and 

(4) the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Tommy Buford (doc. 60) is 

GRANTED and the claims asserted against Tommy Buford are DISMISSED

with prejudice.

 Thus, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED in its entirety. 

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2010.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00026-KD-N Document 65 Filed 02/18/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000

       

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1995
<CASH>                              24,592
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                       141,999
<ALLOWANCES>                        3,200
<INVENTORY>                         111,711
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    280,862
<PP&E>                              252,970
<DEPRECIATION>                      163,833
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      451,308
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               89,915
<BONDS>                             50,923
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                            457
<OTHER-SE>                          304,216
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        451,308
<SALES>                             293,485
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    293,485
<CGS>                               175,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       175,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    71,359
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    284
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  3,013
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     43,075
<INCOME-TAX>                        15,338
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 27,737
<DISCONTINUED>                      1,654
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        26,083
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0.29
<FN>
This financial data schedule has been restated in accordance with SFAS No. 128
(Earnings Per Share), and also to reflect the disposal of the company's network
products business.
</FN>


        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ALBERT D. MAXON, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 106 WAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 17th day of September, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2242 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 

of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General 

for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE 

5 OF INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR FISCAL YEAR 

6 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for US Department of Agriculture, Office of InspecVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:56 Apr 19, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2242.IH H2242

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2242 IH

1 tor General for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

2 $98,208,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
EXHIBIT
32.1






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)






In
connection with the Annual Report of Javo Beverage Company, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), Cody
C. Ashwell, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify,
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to
his knowledge:




(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.








/s/
      Cody C.
      AshwellCody
      C. Ashwell
              Chief
      Executive Officer
              January
      13, 2009




[A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Javo Beverage Company, Inc. and will be retained by Javo Beverage Company, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.]
#### Nikolaos Mastrokostas, Appellant, v 673 Madison, LLC, Respondent.

[970 NYS2d 82]—

*460In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated October 2, 2012, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied his cross motion for leave to amend the complaint to include a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 376.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff allegedly fell into an open trap door during the course of his employment at a restaurant, and commenced this action against the defendant, which owned the premises. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, contending that it was an out-of-possession landlord that could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend the complaint to include a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 376. The Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion and denied the plaintiffs cross motion.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it was out-of-possession landlord that retained no control over the premises where the plaintiffs accident occurred, and was not obligated by contract or statute to maintain or repair the premises *(see O’Connell v L.B. Realty Co.,*50 AD3d 752 [2008]; *Kramer v Ash Clothing,*213 AD2d 600 [1995]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

With respect to the plaintiffs cross motion, applications for leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted except when the delay in seeking leave to amend would directly cause undue prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, or when the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *Ramos v Baker,*91 AD3d 930, 932 *[2012]; Fusca v A & S Constr., LLC,*84 AD3d 1155, 1157 [2011]; *Lucido v Mancuso,*49 AD3d 220, 229 [2008]). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint since the proposed amendment was patently devoid of merit *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]). Eng, PJ., Balkin, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

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

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-51134

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRANDY MICHELE SHIPMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-98-CR-656-3

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

October 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brandy Michele Shipman appeals her jury conviction for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. She argues that she was

constructively denied the assistance of counsel at her sentencing

hearing. The record is sufficiently developed to consider

Shipman’s claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Scott,

159 F.3d 916, 924 (5th Cir. 1998). Shipman had counsel at the

sentencing hearing who reasserted her objections to the

Presentence Report, argued that she should be sentenced at the 
No. 98-51134 

-2-

low end of the guideline range, that the district court recommend

sending her to boot camp, and that she be allowed to remain on

bond pending appeal. Therefore, Shipman was not constructively

denied counsel at the sentencing hearing. See United States v.

Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658-59 (1984).

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 12, 2014, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Center For Medical Interoperability, Inc. (“The Center”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: Center for Medical Interoperability, Inc., La Jolla, CA. The nature and scope of The Center's standards development activities are: Promoting healthcare and enhancing the quality of or access to healthcare by the public through the advancement of interoperability of medical devices and information systems.

Patricia A. Brink,

 Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2014-30672 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KORDELL T. SHARP, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-0188-CG-C

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 06-0176-CG

:

Respondent.

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file deemed relevant to the

issues raised, and there having been no objections filed, the recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and dated August 7, 2009 is ADOPTED as the

opinion of this Court.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2009.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cr-00176-CG-N Document 702 Filed 09/03/09 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-106113, 333-75994, 333-61694, 333-116619, 333-116618, and 333-135235) of HealthExtras, Inc. of our report, dated February 26, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial
statement schedule, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of HealthExtras, Inc., which appears in this Form 10-K.



|                               |  |  |  |                  
|------------------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------
|/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |  |  |  |                  
|PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP     |  |  |  |                  
|McLean, Virginia               |  |  |  |                  
|                               |  |  |  | February 26, 2007
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2122 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, 

Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent Agencies, Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, ASSET PROCEEDS 

5 AND SPACE MANAGEMENT FUND FOR FISCAL 

6 YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Independent Agencies, Asset Proceeds and Space 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2122 IH

1 Management Fund for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

2 $4,000,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB