alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
(October 23, 2013)

#### Aniqa Halal Live Poultry Corp., Appellant, v Montague-Lee Limited Partnership, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 740]

In an action for specific performance of an alleged oral promise to renew a lease on certain property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Markey, J.), entered January 4, 2012, as denied its motion to preliminarily enjoin the defendant from terminating its tenancy of the subject premises. Motion by the defendant, inter alia, for the Court to take judicial notice of certain court orders and to dismiss the appeal as academic. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated December 6, 2012, those branches of the motion which were for the Court to take judicial notice of certain court orders and to dismiss the appeal were held in abeyance and referred to the panel of Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the submission of the appeal, it is

Ordered that the branches of the motion which are for the Court to take judicial notice of certain court orders and to dismiss the appeal are granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs.

It is undisputed that, during the pendency of the appeal, a judgment was entered awarding the defendant possession of the subject premises in a holdover proceeding in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County, and that the parties entered into a stipulation whereby the plaintiff vacated the subject premises on April 30, 2012. Under these circumstances, it is no longer possible to enjoin the defendant from terminating the plaintiffs tenancy. Moreover, the defendant has since sold the subject premises to the nonparty New York City School Construction Authority as a site on which to construct a public school and, therefore, no longer has an interest in the property. Any determination by this Court will not affect the rights of the parties, and the matter does not otherwise warrant invoking an exception to the mootness doctrine *(see Matter of Hearst Corp. v*
      *935
      *Clyne,*50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]; *Matter of Cisse v Graham,*87 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2011]).

Accordingly, the appeal from the order, which denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, has been rendered academic *(see Frey v Rose,*51 AD3d 859 [2008]). Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 33 Misc 3d 1237(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 52265(U).]
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2107 

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

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 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 Independent Agencies, Commodity Futures Trading Commission 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, COMMODITY FU5 TURES TRADING COMMISSION 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, Commodity Futures TradVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:37 Apr 18, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2107.IH H2107

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2107 IH

1 ing Commission for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

2 $268,000,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
From: The District Court of the 13th Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. DANIEL SKINNER, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-04-666 DECISION

On November 21, 2005, the defendant was sentenced to sixty (60) years in the Montana State Prison for the offense of Incest, a felony.

On May 8, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was represented by Ann Marie McKittrick, who appeared via videoconference.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he did not wish to proceed.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the application for review of sentence shall be waived.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 8th day of May, 2009.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3733 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain plasma flat panel displays. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 26, 2006 

Mr. PRYOR introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain plasma flat panel 

displays. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PLASMA FLAT PANEL DISPLAYS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.85.01 Plasma flat panel displays 

(provided for in subheading 

8529.90.53) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 3733 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Exhibit
      31.1




**CERTIFICATION**




I,
      John
      A. Hupalo, certify that:




l.           I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D
      required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form
      10-K of The National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1 (the “Exchange Act
      periodic reports”);




2.           Based
      on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;




3.           Based
      on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information
      required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report
      is
      included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;




4.           Based
      on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report
      under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
      periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the
      servicing agreement in all material respects




5.           All
      the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
      securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
      with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
      in
      this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
      otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
      described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
      10-K.




In
      giving
      the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
      to me
      by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank National Association, as
      Indenture Trustee and Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance
      Agency.




Date:
        September 20, 2007




/s/
              John A. HupaloJohn
                A. Hupalo
              Chief
                Financial Officer and Treasurer
              (senior
                officer in charge of securitization)
              National
                Collegiate Funding
                LLC
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 89 (Monday, May 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 21832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10878]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,570]


Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Auburn, CA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 12, 2009, in response to a worker 
petition filed on behalf of workers at Pentair Water Pool and Spa, 
Auburn, California.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of April 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-10878 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.1 
 June 6, 2007 
 Comerica Bank, as Agent 
 500 Woodward Avenue 
 Detroit, Michigan 48226 
  

	 	Re:	MegaBingo, Inc. and MGAM Systems, Inc. 

 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Reference is made to that certain Revolving Credit Agreement, dated as of April 27, 2007 (as in effect, the “Credit Agreement”) by and
among the Banks referred to therein, Comerica Bank, as agent for the Banks (in such capacity, the “Agent”) and MegaBingo, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“MegaBingo”) and MGAM Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“MGAM”, together with MegaBingo, collectively referred to as the “Borrowers”). Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed thereto in the Credit Agreement. 
 The Borrowers hereby request that the Banks amend Section 7.6(b)(i) of the Credit Agreement by deleting the phrase “within 60 days of
the date of this Agreement” appearing therein (the “Amendment”). 
 By their signatures set forth below, the Agent and the
Banks hereby agree to the Amendment. This letter shall be deemed to be the first amendment to the Credit Agreement. 
 Except as expressly
set forth herein, nothing herein shall constitute an amendment or modification of, or waiver or consent to, any terms or provisions of the Credit Agreement or any other Loan Document. 
 This letter may be executed in several counterparts and each executed copy shall constitute an original instrument, but such counterparts shall together
constitute but one and the same instrument. 
 Kindly acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing by signing a copy of this letter in the
space provided below. 
  

			
	Very truly yours,
	
	MEGABINGO, INC.



			
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Randy Cieslewicz

		 	Randy Cieslewicz, CFO
		 	
	MGAM SYSTEMS, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Randy Cieslewicz
		 	Randy Cieslewicz, CFO


  








			
	AGREED TO AND ACKNOWLEDGED:
	
	COMERICA BANK, as Agent, Swing Line Bank and Issuing Bank


			
	
		
	By:	 	/s/ Chad G. Neely
		 	Name: Chad G. Neely
		 	Title: Vice President


			
	
	COMERICA BANK, as Bank
		
	By:	 	/s/ Chad G. Neely
		 	Name: Chad G. Neely
		 	Title: Vice President


			
	
	CIT LENDING SERVICES CORPORATION, as Syndication Agent
		
	By:	 	/s/ Anthony Holland
		 	Name: Anthony Holland
		 	Title: Vice President


			
	
	CIT LENDING SERVICES CORPORATION, as Bank
		
	By:	 	/s/ Anthony Holland
		 	Name: Anthony Holland
		 	Title: Vice President
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00041-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

SAKINA TREVATHAN

AND

DEVIN TRAVATHAN

AND 

IN THE INTEREST OF D.M.T., JR., A CHILD

From the 414th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-3060-5

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sakina Trevathan appeals the trial court’s decree of divorced signed on November 

20, 2014. By letter dated March 9, 2015, Trevathan informed the Court that the trial court 

had granted a new trial regarding child support and medical support.

By letter dated December 5, 2014, the Clerk of this Court notified Trevathan that 

the appeal was subject to dismissal because of the trial court’s order granting a new trial 

as to some issues in the underlying proceeding and warned Trevathan that the Court 

would dismiss the appeal unless, within 10 days from the date of the letter, Trevathan 
In the Matter of the Marriage of Travathan Page 2

filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Ten days have passed and 

Trevathan has not responded. 

This appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed April 2, 2015

[CV06]
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 State

          - [Public Notice 9001]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “On Kawara: Silence,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, New York, from on or about February 6, 2015, until on or about May 3, 2015, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including lists of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

Dated: January 9, 2015.

Kelly Keiderling,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2015-00620 Filed 1-15-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry James SOLOMON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-20651

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Larry Chris lies, Rockport Mail Center, Rockport, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Larry James Solomon entered a guilty plea to a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon and was sentenced to 96 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He argues that the statute of conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), is unconstitutional as applied because the statute requires a substantial effect on interstate commerce and the factual basis for his plea established only that the firearm traveled in interstate commerce at some point in the past. Solomon concedes that his constitutional challenge is foreclosed by circuit precedent, and he raises it only to preserve its further review by the Supreme Court. We have indeed held that “the 3 of § 922(g) is not open to question,” *United States v. Daugherty,*264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and, additionally, that the Government need only establish that the firearm was manufactured out of state to satisfy the interstate commerce element of the offense. *See United States v. Guidry,*406 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 190, 163 L.Ed.2d 198 (2005).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
deac_ex1063.htm

  
  EXHIBIT 10.63 
   
  FIRST AMENDMENT TO SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT  
   
  This Amendment (the “Amendment”) dated as of June 30, 2015 (the “Effective Date”), is made and entered into by and between H y H Investments, Sociedad Anonima (the “Seller”) and Elite Data Services Inc. (the “Purchaser” which shall include its assigns). 
   
  RECITALS 
   
  WHEREAS, the Purchaser and the Seller entered into a Securities Purchase Agreement dated April 4, 2015 (the “Agreement”) and related Promissory Note dated April 6, 2015 (the “Original Note”); and 
   
  WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend certain provisions of the Agreement and Restate the Original Note as set forth herein;
   
  NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
   
  1.           Section 5.12 of the Agreement is hereby added to the Agreement and states in its entirety as follows: 
   
  “Section 5.12 Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement shall be April 6, 2016 in conjunction with the Amended and Restated Promissory Note dated June 30, 2015 (the “Note”) between the Purchaser and Seller. 
   
  2.            The Original Note is hereby deemed null and void, and replaced in its entirety with the Note (annexed hereto). 
   
  All other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  
   
  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. 
   
  PURCHASER 
   
  Elite Data Services, Inc. and/or its assigns 
   
    
  	  By:    
	  /s/ Charles Rimlinger
	
		  Name: Charles Rimlinger, CEO 
	
		  Title: Chief Executive Officer 
	


   
  SELLER 
   
  H y H Investments, Sociedad Anonima 
   
    
  	  By: 
	  /s/ Wilson Stevenson 
	
		  Wilson Stevenson 
  Owner
#### In the Matter of David O’Kane, Appellant, v Robert S. Kirkpatrick, as Superintendent of Wende Correctional Facility, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 30, 2009;

decided May 7, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
[909 NE2d 83, 881 NYS2d 390]

#### In the Matter of RSM West Lake Road LLC et al., Respondents, v Town of Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals et al., Respondents, and East Shore Association of Canandaigua Lake, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Decided May 12, 2009

*845APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Brenna, Brenna & Boyce, PLLC,*Rochester *(Sheldon W. Boyce*of counsel), for East Shore Association of Canandaigua Lake, Inc. and another, appellants.

*Hiscock & Barclay LLP,*Rochester *(Thomas F. Walsh*of counsel), for RSM West Lake Road, LLC and others, respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Appellants East Shore Association of Canandaigua Lake, Inc. and Canandaigua Lake Watershed Alliance, Inc. had standing to appeal to the Town of Canandaigua Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) from the zoning officer’s determinations that the clubhouse is a private water oriented recreational facility within the meaning of the Town of Canandaigua Zoning Law (Zoning Law) and that the docks, moorings and boat slips are regulated by the “all other land uses” category of the Canandaigua Lake Uniform Docking and Mooring Law (UDML) *(see Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals of Town of N. Hempstead,*69 NY2d 406, 412-414 [1987]; Town Law § 267-a [4]; UDML 44-10 [A]). Moreover, the ZBA had jurisdiction to review the zoning officer’s determinations interpreting the UDML, which was adopted pursuant to article 16 of the Town Law, as authorized by Navigation Law § 46-a (4) (a) *{see*Town Law § 267-a [4]). However, the ZBA’s determinations as to the clubhouse under the Zoning Law and the docks, moorings and boat slips under the UDML were arbitrary and capricious. Finally, any issue as to whether the proposed sundeck is a dock within the meaning of the UDML has become moot inasmuch as the sundeck was removed from the overall project subsequent to the Appellate Division’s determination.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.