alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 19, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00151-CV 

LUIS ORTIZ, Appellant 

V. 

REYNA SALAZAR, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-21-05520-A 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Nowell 

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness 

Appellant has not filed his brief on the merits despite being cautioned on June 

23, 2022 that failure to file the brief within ten days would result in dismissal of the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See 

id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c). 

220151F.P05 

 

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

LUIS ORTIZ, Appellant 

No. 05-22-00151-CV V. 

REYNA SALAZAR, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 1, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-21-05520-

A. 

Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness, Justices Pedersen, III and 

Nowell participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered July 19, 2022.
EXHIBIT
23.1



CONSENT
OF CHRISTOPHER ENERGY, LLC



As
independent oil and gas consultants, Christopher Energy, LLC hereby consents to the incorporation by reference of all references
to our firm and information from our reserves report dated May 16, 2011, included in or made a part of the North American Energy
Resources, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the years ended April 30, 2012 and April 30, 2011 to be filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on or about May 10, 2013.



| | /s/
    Gary Christopher   
| | ---------------------------
| | CHRISTOPHER
    ENERGY, LLC



Tulsa,
Oklahoma

May
10, 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

MALIK ANDERSON,

Petitioner

v.

THE FIRST DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY CENTER FOR

CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 89 EM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9 th day of February , 202 4

, the “Writ of Prohibition and Mandamus”

is DENIED.
#### Double C Realty Corp., Appellant, v Craps, LLC, Respondent.

[870 NYS2d 333]

*481Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), entered July 11, 2008, which, in an action by a tenant against its landlord involving the validity of tenant’s exercise of an option to renew the subject lease, denied plaintiff-tenant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of granting plaintiffs motion to dismiss the fourth affirmative defense based upon the Rule Against Perpe-tuities and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

By its terms, the lease provides that plaintiff’s options to extend the term of the lease “shall be exercised by written notice given to the Lessor at least one (1) year before the expiration of the Initial Term hereof, or, in the event Lessee has previously exercised one or more options herein given, such notice shall be given at least six (6) months before the expiration of such option term.” Such options clearly originate in one of the lease provisions, are not exercisable after lease expiration, and are incapable of separation from the lease. Thus, as options “appendant” or “appurtenant” to the lease, they are valid even though the holder’s, in this case plaintiffs, interest may vest beyond the perpetuities period and are not contemplated by EPTL 9-1.1 (b) *(Symphony Space v Pergola Props.,*88 NY2d 466, 480 [1996]). We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice Exponent Report of Desiccated PSPI-X and PSDI-X Inflators Installed in Honda Vehicles


Download file: Exponent Report of Desiccated PSPI-X and PSDI-X Inflators Installed in Honda Vehicles
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
           CONSENT OF COOPERS & LYBRAND, LLP, INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
of General Surgical Innovations, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-10305) of our
report dated July 29, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of General Surgical Innovations,
Inc. as of June 30, 1997 and 1996 and for the years ended June 30, 1997, 1996
and 1995 which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended June 30, 1997.
 
                                          COOPERS & LYBRAND
 
San Jose, California
September 29, 1997
#### Louis CHIARAMONTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SANTA CRUZ BIG TREES & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-17234.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 17, 2009.*

Filed May 12, 2009.

Kristoffer S. Mayfield, Esq., Hildebrand, McLeod & Nelson, Inc., Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Rebecca Connolly, Esq., Grunsky, Ebey, Farrar and Howell, Watsonville, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: NOONAN, ARCHER,** and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

“Equitable tolling may be applied if, despite all due diligence, a plaintiff is unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of his claim.” *Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell,*202 F.3d 1170, 1178 (9th Cir. *5762000). Here, Louis Chiaramonte (“Chiaramonte”) presented no evidence that he was unaware of his injury, or that he acted with any diligence to investigate whether he had a claim under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”), 45 U.S.C. § 51, *et seq.*Therefore he is not entitled to equitable tolling: “The absolute lack of any effort on his part to inquire about available options defeats his equitable tolling claim.” *See Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc.,*471 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir.2006).

Chiaramonte also argues that his employer, Santa Cruz Big Trees & Pacific Railway Co. (“SCBT”), should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations against him because SCBT helped him to receive California workers’ compensation but did not inform him of his potential FELA claim. The equitable estoppel analysis “focuses primarily on the actions taken by the defendant in preventing a plaintiff from filing suit.” *Santa Maria,*202 F.3d at 1176. In order to assert equitable estoppel, the plaintiff must demonstrate both actual and reasonable reliance on the defendant’s conduct or representations. *Id.*It was unreasonable for Chiaramonte to assume that SCBT’s assistance with obtaining workers’ compensation indicated that no federal remedies were available. *See Huseman,*471 F.3d at 1123-24 (finding same).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Kannan GURUSAMY, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70540.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2006.*

Filed Nov. 1, 2006.

*870Hardeep Singh Rai, Tsz-Hai Huang George T. Heridis, Esq., Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of The District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esq., Alison Marie Igoe, Esq., Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC; for Respondent. .

Before: BRUNETTI, O’SCANNLAIN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Kennan Gurusamy, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA adopted the IJ’s adverse credibility finding but declined to reach the IJ’s alternative finding that petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof for relief. Accordingly, the petition for review is limited to the adverse credibility finding.

“Although some of the factors the IJ relied upon are either unsupported or irrelevant, so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [Gurusa-my’s] claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.” *Li v. Ashcroft,*378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). At the very least, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Gurusamy’s testimony regarding an alleged political motivation behind his second and third arrests is incredible. As the IJ found, after a three year absence from India, Gurusamy did not significantly engage in any political activities when he returned in 2001 to precipitate a political arrest just one month later. His declaration vaguely states that he was “preparing” to support his party, and when given an opportunity to explain his participation he testified that it consisted of planning only.

Because we uphold the adverse credibility finding and petitioner does not contend that he is otherwise eligible for relief, the petition for review is

DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         2,335,795
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      26,775
<MORTGAGE>                                      11,424
<REAL-ESTATE>                                      583
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               2,784,630
<CASH>                                          16,797
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             347,828
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         325,570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,700,242
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              2,804,694
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             10,827
<POLICY-OTHER>                                  55,722
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                125,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                     111,374
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,700,242
<PREMIUMS>                                     490,278
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            150,960
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               4,514
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                     341,044
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     20,396
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           195,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 76,224
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,678
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             49,546
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    49,546
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.48
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 44

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the amount of the 

military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2005

Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. DEWINE, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. 

LAUTENBERG, and Mr. SALAZAR) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to increase the 

amount of the military death gratuity from $12,000 to 

$100,000.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Death Benefit 

5 Improvement Act of 2005’’. 
2

•S 44 IS 

1 SEC. 2. INCREASE IN DEATH GRATUITY PAYABLE WITH RE2 SPECT TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

3 (a) AMOUNT OF DEATH GRATUITY.—Section 

4 1478(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 

5 striking ‘‘$12,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$100,000’’. 

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

7 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to deaths occurring 

8 on or after November 16, 2001, the date of Executive 

9 Order 13235, relating to National Emergency Construc10 tion Authority. 

11 (c) FUNDING.—

12 (1) SOURCE OF FUNDS.—Amounts for the pay13 ment during fiscal year 2005 of death gratuities by 

14 a Secretary concerned under sections 1475 through 

15 1477 of title 10, United States Code, as amended by 

16 subsection (a), shall be derived from amounts made 

17 available for such fiscal year in an Act making emer18 gency supplemental appropriations for defense and 

19 for the reconstruction of Iraq. 

20 (2) SECRETARY CONCERNED DEFINED.—In this 

21 subsection, the term ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ has the 

22 meaning given such term in section 101(a)(9) of 

23 title 10, United States Code.

Æ
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-65,606] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 16, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of SUMCO Phoenix Corporation, Cincinnati Division, Maineville, Ohio. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of April 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-11856 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Exhibit 10.c
                              V.P. SALES/MARKETING
                           Fiscal 1998 Incentive Plan



                                                                       INCENTIVE
                                                                       POTENTIAL
                                                                       ---------
DISCRETIONARY                                                          $  8,000


         At  the  discretion  of  the  CEO.   Based  upon  effort,   dedication,
         creativity,  management support, etc. Earned completely  independent of
         objective awards, if any.


OBJECTIVE

         PML Profits                                                     $12,000

                  PML pretax  profits in excess of  $460,000  will be used as an
                  incentive base. A 10% bonus will be earned on pretax profit in
                  excess of  $460,000.  The maximum  bonus that can be earned is
                  $12,000.


         PML Sales and Gross Profit                                      $30,000


                  PML net sales in excess of $13.5  million  will be used as the
                  incentive  base.  A 3.75%  (.0375)  bonus  will be paid on net
                  sales in excess of $13.5  million.  The maximum bonus that can
                  be earned is $30,000. To the extent that standard gross profit
                  (net sales standard  cost) is maintained at 40.2%,  the earned
                  bonus is not affected.  For each tenth of 1% (.001) lower than
                  40.2%, the bonus will be decreased by $10,000.






                                                                         -------

                                    Total Potential Incentive            $50,000
                                                                         =======
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Jennifer L. Ganster, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[975 NYS2d 217]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 6, 2012, which, among other things, ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because she had a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

After claimant was laid off from her position as a full-time special education teacher for the employer during the 2009-2010 academic year, she remained on the employer’s payroll at a reduced salary for the following academic year as a coach and per diem substitute teacher. In June 2011, prior to the end of the 2010-2011 academic year, claimant received a telephone call from the employer offering her a full-time position as a special education teacher for the 2011-2012 academic year at a salary 5% higher than her former full-time employment. Although claimant verbally accepted the position, she nevertheless filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits effective July 11, 2011. Claimant received a memorandum in August 2011 confirming her employment. Ultimately, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive benefits because she had received a reasonable assurance of continued employment pursuant to Labor Law § 590 (10). Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. “A professional employed by an educational institution is precluded from receiving unemployment insurance benefits for the period between two successive academic years when he or she has received a reasonable assurance of continued employment” *(Matter of Murphy [Commissioner of Labor],*85 AD3d 1478, 1479 [2011] [citations omitted]; *see*Labor Law § 590 [10]). Notably, the question of whether a claimant received a reasonable assurance of reemployment for the following academic year is a question of fact and, if the Board’s findings in that regard are supported by substantial evidence, they will not be disturbed *(see Matter of Sultana [New York City Dept. of Educ.*— Commissioner *of Labor],*79 AD3d 1552, 1553 [2010]). Here, the Board specifically credited claimant’s testimony that she was informed prior to the end of the 2010-2011 academic year that a position was available at the beginning of the upcoming 2011-2012 semester. While claimant did *1015not receive formal notice in writing until August 2011, we find no basis to conclude that the oral assurance that claimant received in June 2011 was not sufficient and reliable under the circumstances herein *(see*Labor Law § 590 [10]; *see generally Matter of Klein [Levine],*42 AD2d 640, 641 [1973]). Claimant’s remaining contentions, including her argument that she should not be subject to a recoverable overpayment *(see Matter of Huff [Sweeney],*247 AD2d 734, 735 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 801 [1998]), have been examined and found to be unpersuasive.

Peters, EJ., Rose, Lahtinen and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
#### Chief Judge of the State of New York et al., Appellants-Respondents, v Governor of the State of New York, Defendant, and Speaker of the New York State Assembly et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Submitted December 7, 2009;

decided December 15, 2009

Reported below, 65 AD3d 898.

Motion by Fund for Modern Courts for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.