alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6
MARIA L. VARGAS MONTES , 7 Petitioner-Appellee, 8
v. NO. 31,038 9 HOWARD JOHNSON , 10 Respondent-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY 12 Daniel Viramontes, District Judge 13 Amy C. Delaney-Hernandez 14 Deming, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Howard Johnson 17 Deming, NM 18 Pro Se Appellant 19 MEMORANDUM OPINION 20 VIGIL, Judge. 21 Appellant Howard Johnson appeals pro sefrom the district court’s ruling with 22 regard to child support and custody. [RP 51, 70] Our March 8, 2011, notice proposed 232 to dismiss for lack of finality. Appellant did not file a memorandum in opposition to 1 our notice. See Rule 12-210(D)(3) NMRA. For reasons set forth in our notice, we 2 dismiss for lack of finality. See Frick v. Veazey , 116 N.M. 246, 247, 861 P.2d 287, 3 288 (Ct. App. 1993) (s tating that the “[f]ailure tofile a memorandum in opposition 4 constitutes acceptance of the disposition propos ed in the calendar notice”). We lastly 5 acknowledge Appellant’s February 15, 2011, “motion for production and pretrial 6 matters.” Given our dismissal for lack of finality, however, we lack jurisdiction to 7 consider the merits of Appellant’s motion. We dismiss. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9

_______________________________ 10 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 11
WE CONCUR: 12

_________________________________ 13 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 14

_________________________________ 15 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge 16
Document

THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED 
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 


    This Third Amendment (this “Amendment”), dated as of August 1, 2022 by and between Lifetime Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Laurence Winoker (the “Executive”) shall be effective as of August 1, 2022 (the “Amendment Effective Date”) and amends the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of September 10, 2015 between the Company and the Executive, as previously amended (the “Employment Agreement”). 


    WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Employment Agreement, the Company wishes to further amend the Employment Agreement to reflect a change in the Executive’s title as of the Amendment Effective Date.


    NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of Executive’s continued employment with the Company and other good and sufficient consideration set forth herein, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows:


1.Section 2(a) of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:


“Duties. During the Employment Term, the Executive shall be Executive Vice President,  Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (the “CFO”). In such capacity, the Executive shall serve as advisor to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company (the “CEO”) and shall report directly to the CEO. The Executive shall perform such other duties on behalf of the Company and its subsidiaries as are consistent with his position and as may be assigned to him by the CEO. The Executive hereby agrees to devote his full business time, energies and attention, and to use his best efforts, skills and abilities to faithfully perform his duties hereunder and to forward the business and affairs of the Company, and to promote the Company’s interests.”


2.The Employment Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, constitutes the entire and exclusive agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. All previous discussions and agreements with respect to the subject matter of this Amendment are superseded by this Amendment.


3.Except as expressly amended hereby, all the terms, conditions, and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Amendment shall form a part of the Employment Agreement for all purposes.
 
4.This Amendment may be executed in counterparts and by facsimile or other electronic means, including by portable document format (PDF), each of which shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as an original and together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


5.The Company represents and warrants that it has the full power and authority to enter into this Amendment. 


[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank]


			
	












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above.


                        LIFETIME BRANDS, INC.
                           						
	By:	/s/ Robert B. Kay
		Name: Robert B. Kay
Title: Chief Executive Officer





                         EXECUTIVE
                         			
	/s/ Laurence Winoker
	Laurence Winoker


2
			
	DB1/ 118493770.2
#### McKay, Trustee, *v.*McKnight and others.

*(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.*

-, 1881.)

McKay, Trustee, v. Dibert, *ante,*587, followed, and provisional in. junction allowed.

In Equity.

Nixon, D. *J.*

The preliminary injunction is allowed in the above case, not only for the reason stated in the opinion in the case of the same complainant against Dibert, but for the additional reason that the defendant William McKnight, as licensee of the complainant, is estopped by the express terms of his contract from setting up the defences which have been brought forward in excuse of the infringement by the defendants.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


            In connection with the quarterly report of Synergx Systems Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Daniel S. Tamkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, John A.
Poserina, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
my knowledge, that:

(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 results of operations of the Company.


                                             /s/ Daniel S. Tamkin
                                            ------------------------
                                            Daniel S. Tamkin
                                            Chief Executive Officer
                                            Synergx Systems Inc.
                                            February 14, 2003



                                            /s/ John A. Poserina
                                            -------------------------
                                            John A, Poserina
                                            Chief Financial  Officer
                                            Synergx Systems Inc.
                                            February 14, 2003
**Individual Firefighter EvaluationChecklist #09**

**Individual Fire Fighter EvaluationChecklist #09**

**9-1Revised 2010**

**9-2****Revised 2009**
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13465]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,855]


Horizon Hobby, Inc, Ontario, CA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on April 28, 2009, in response to a 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of all workers at 
Horizon Hobby, Inc, Ontario, California.
    The petitioner requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of May 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13465 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3200 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 384
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3200

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 14, 2010

Mrs. Gillibrand introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

                              May 18, 2010

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ZACHARY SMITH POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Zachary Smith Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
or other record of the United States to the facility referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Zachary Smith 
Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 384

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3200

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 23 Genesee Street in Hornell, New York, as the ``Zachary Smith Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 18, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### CARI, LLC, Appellant, v 415 Greenwich Fee Owner, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 12, 2012;

decided May 8, 2012

*846Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiffs motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1
<CURRENCY>                                                          USD
       

<S>                                                         <C>                  

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                     3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                        8,970,071
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                16,205,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  3,917,580
<INVENTORY>                                                  19,011,814
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             53,309,686
<PP&E>                                                        4,188,762
<DEPRECIATION>                                                  210,715
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                               53,309,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         6,628,101
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                     25,173,375
<OTHER-SE>                                                   21,508,210
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                 53,309,686
<SALES>                                                      21,440,851
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                             17,950,711
<CGS>                                                        14,692,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 4,905,501
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                129,087
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (1,517,903)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   (561,624)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            (956,279)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   (956,279)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                     (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (0.13)

        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3221 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3221

 To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend 
the suspension of limitation on the period for which certain borrowers 
                are eligible for guaranteed assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 19, 2010

  Mr. Kohl (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
Harkin, Mr. Bond, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. 
 Leahy, and Mr. Durbin) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
                                Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend 
the suspension of limitation on the period for which certain borrowers 
                are eligible for guaranteed assistance.

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

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION ON PERIOD FOR WHICH BORROWERS ARE 
              ELIGIBLE FOR GUARANTEED ASSISTANCE.

    Section 5102 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
(7 U.S.C. 1949 note; Public Law 107-171) is amended by striking 
``December 31, 2010'' and inserting ``December 31, 2012''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Erica L. Niemann et al., as Coadministrators of the Estate of Timothy W. Niemann, Deceased, Appellants, v St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted February 21, 2012;

decided May 1, 2012

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*18 NY3d 875 (2012)].
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT (23)
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 dated October 14, 1988 and Form S-8 dated December 28, 1994)
pertaining to the 1988 Incentive Stock Option Plan and the 1994 Incentive
Stock Option Plan of Anthony Industries, Inc. of our report dated February 21,
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of K2 Inc.
included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
1996.
 
  Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of K2 Inc. listed
in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.
In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.
 
                                          Ernst & Young LLP
 
Los Angeles, California
March 26, 1997
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Keith T. Cox, Appellant, v James R. Hanstein, as Corrections Superintendent, Ulster County Sheriffs Office, et al., Respondents.

[976 NYS2d 895]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Zwack, J.), entered March 19, 2012 in Ulster County, which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that he is entitled to be released because his due process rights were allegedly violated as the result of a preliminary parole revocation hearing. Supreme Court denied petitioner’s application on the merits, and he sought to challenge that denial in this Court. However, inasmuch as our review of the record reveals, and the Ulster County Clerk’s office has confirmed, that petitioner failed to file or serve a notice of appeal in accordance with CPLR 5513 (a) and 5515 (1), we lack jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed *(see Matter of Johnson v Smith,*80 AD3d 931, 932 [2011]).

Rose, J.E, Lahtinen, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Blie, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 719]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated February 18, 2003 *(People v Blie,*302 AD2d 536 [2003]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 14, 1999.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Schmidt, J.E, Adams, Santucci and Luciano, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6090

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. GEORGE MCBRIDE, a/k/a Benzo , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville

. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. ( 1:00

- cr - 00069

- MR

- 3 ; 1:16

- cv 00201

- MR )

Submitted : December 16, 2021 Decided: December 17, 2021

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges , and KEENAN , Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Joshua B. Carpenter , F EDERAL DEFENDER S OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC. , Asheville, North Carolina for Ap pellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: George McBride seeks to appeal th e district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 2 8 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion

. See Whiteside v. United States , 775 F.3d 180, 182

- 83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. McBride relied on the retroactively

- applicable Johnson v. United States , 576 U.S. 591 (2015), in his § 2255 motion challenging his career offender status. However, as we confirmed in United States v. Brown , 868 F.3d 297, 301 (4th Cir. 2017), Johnson dealt only with the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) and did not recognize that other residual clauses similarly worded to the ACCA’s residual clause

— like the career offender guidelines

— are unconstitutionally vague. 868 F.3d at 303. Accordingly, under Brown ’s framework, which is binding and unaltered by subse quent case law, McBride did not assert a right newly recognized by the Supreme Court. Therefore, his motion was not timely under § 2255(f)(3).3 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument beca use the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 11

                    CATALINA LIGHTING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF DILUTED EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                          December 31,
                                                     ----------------------
                                                        2000         1999
                                                     --------      --------
<S>                                                  <C>           <C>
Net income (loss) for diluted earnings
  per share                                          $ (1,899)     $    537
                                                     ========      ========
Weighted average number of common shares
  outstanding during the period                         8,000         7,386

Weighted average number of shares repurchased
  during the period                                      (642)         (400)

Common equivalent shares determined
   using the "Treasury Stock" method
   representing shares issuable upon exercise
   of stock options and warrants and shares
   issuable under contractual agreements                   --           759
                                                     --------      --------
Weighted average number of shares
  used in calculation of diluted earnings (loss)
  per share                                             7,358         7,745
                                                     ========      ========
Diluted earnings (loss) per share                    $  (0.26)     $   0.07
                                                     ========      ========
</TABLE>