alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### McKENZIE v. SHAUGHNESSY.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Nov. 4, 1953.

Lester Taylor, New York City, for plaintiff.

J. Edward Lumbard, U. S. Atty., New York City, for defendant.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff, concededly an alien seaman, illegally present in the United States and deportable under an outstanding valid final order of deportation, has commenced an action against Edward J; Shaughnessy, the District Director of Immigration and Naturalization of the Port of New York, seeking an injunction against execution of the deportation order.

The action is based on the allegations that plaintiff has an action pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, commenced on September 19, 1952 to recover for personal injuries sustained on July 10, 1951, and if deportation is not stayed, he will be deprived of a “vested property right” in that he may not be allowed to return to the United States and appear in person when his personal injury case is reached for trial.

Plaintiff (Motion No. 59) moves for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from executing the final order of deportation during the pendency of his suit for the injunction.

Defendant (Motion No. 60) moves for an order dismissing the complaint on the grounds (1) that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (2) that venue is improper and *147(3) that plaintiff has failed to join an indispensable party, namely, the Commissioner of Immigration.

The defendant’s second defense of improper venue hinges on the validity of the third defense of failure to join an indispensable party. If the Commissioner of Immigration is an indispenable party, venue is properly laid only in the District of Columbia.

The Commissioner is an indispensable party to this action1 and accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to join an indispensable party is granted. This disposition of the case obviates a determination of the defendant’s first defense and precludes the granting of plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (No. 59) is denied; defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint (No. 60) is granted.

Settle orders.

1

. Paolo v. Garfinkel, 3 Cir., 200 F.2d 280.
Exhibit 10.3a


Under the Company's 1999 Officers  Variable  Incentive Plan, the Chief Executive
Officer of the Company,  with the approval of the Human  Resources  Committee of
the Board of Directors, annually designates the officers who will participate in
the program,  establishes  their  participation  level, and establishes  certain
financial and operational goals for the Company which must be satisfied in order
for  variable  pay awards to be made.  The  impact,  if any,  of each  officer's
performance  on his  or her  variable  pay  award  is  determined  by the  Chief
Executive  Officer of the  Company,  with the  approval  of the Human  Resources
Committee.  Subject to final  approval by the Human  Resources  Committee of the
Board of Directors,  the Chief Executive Officer also determines at year-end the
degree to which those goals have been  satisfied  and the amount of variable pay
to be awarded to participating officers, if any.
Document


Exhibit 10.1
[EMAIL] INDICATES THE PORTION OF THIS EXHIBIT THAT HAS BEEN OMITTED BECAUSE IT IS BOTH (i) NOT MATERIAL AND (ii) THE TYPE OF INFORMATION COMPANY TREATS AS PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL


4th AMENDMENT TO LEASE
THIS AMENDMENT TO LEASE is made and entered into as of May 23, 2022 , by and between Smoky Hollow Industries LLC ("Lessor") and Beyond Meat, Inc. a Delaware Corporation formerly known as Savage River, Inc
("Lessee").
WHEREAS, on or about July 1, 2021 a Lease was entered into by and between Lessor and Lessee relating to certain real property commonly known as 
(street address, city, state, zip): 1320 E Franklin Ave, El Segundo, CA 90245 (the "Premises"), and
WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee  have not previously amended said Lease, and
WHEREAS, the Lessor and Lessee now desire to amend said Lease,
NOW, THEREFORE, for payment of TEN DOLLARS and other good and valuable consideration to Lessor, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, 
the parties mutually agree to make the following additions and modifications to the Lease:
																		
	☑		TERM: The Expiration date is here by	☐  advanced	☑ extended to	June 30, 2022
	☐		AGREED USE:  The Agreed Use is hereby modified to:		.
	☐		BASE RENT ADJUSTMENT:  Monthly Base rent shall be as follows:		.
	☐		OTHER:		.	




This Amendment shall not be construed against the party preparing it, but shall be construed as if all parties jointly prepared this Amendment and any uncertainty and ambiguity shall not be interpreted against any one party. Signatures to this Amendment accomplished by means of electronic signature or similar technology shall be legal and binding.
All other terms and conditions of this Lease shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect except as specifically amended herein.
EXECUTED as of the day and year first above written.
    By Lessor:    By Lessee:
									
	Smoky Hollow Industries LLC		Beyond Meat, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
			formerly known as Savage River, Inc.
	By: /s/ Mark Telesz		By: /s/ Dariush Ajami
	Name Printed: Mark Telesz		Name Printed: Dariush Ajami
	Title: Manager		Title: CIO
	Phone:____________		Phone:____________
	Fax:____________		Fax:____________
	Email: [EMAIL]		Email: [EMAIL]
	Title: _____________		Title: _____________
	Phone:____________		Phone:____________
	Fax:____________		Fax:____________
	Email:____________		Email:____________
	Address:____________		Address:____________
	Federal ID No.:____________		Federal ID No.:____________


    
AIR CRE * https://www.aircre.com * 213-687-8777 * contracts@aircre.com 
NOTICE: No part of these works maybe reproduced in any form without permission in writing.








						
	___MT_____
	___DA_____

	________	________
	INITIALS	INITIALS



    © 2017 AIR CRE. All Rights Reserved.    Last Edited: 5/23/2022 6:33 PM
    ATL-1.02, Revised10-22-2020    Page 1 of 1
Growth of Tribal 

Revenue (in B

$6.301 $7.451 $8.496

$9.800

$10.959

$12.822

$14.718

$16.826

$19

$0$5

$10$15$20$25$30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,659
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   110
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     4
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      5,133
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             201
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               216
<LOANS>                                         30,486
<ALLOWANCE>                                        505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,554
<DEPOSITS>                                      34,234
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,079
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                778
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,191
<COMMON>                                           190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         98
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,985
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  41,554
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,580
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  376
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     5
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,961
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 993
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,219
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,742
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      123
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,519
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    820
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         533
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       533
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.13
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.88
<LOANS-NON>                                        168
<LOANS-PAST>                                        55
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     3
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   501
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      173
<RECOVERIES>                                        51
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  505
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               505
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             92
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Mary L. Kessler, Petitioner, v Scott M. Fancher, Respondent. Scott A. Otis, Attorney for the Chil*1323dren, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[976 NYS2d 908]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Jefferson County (Peter A. Schwerzmann, A.J.), entered September 10, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order dismissed the petition for an order of protection.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of Kessler v Fancher*(112 AD3d 1323 [2013]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Centra, Lindley, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Leone Figueroa, Petitioner, v Kathleen Rice et al., Respondents.

[976 NYS2d 890]

Proceeding pursuant *925to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the respondents to dismiss the indictment in an underlying criminal action entitled *People v Figueroa,*pending in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under indictment No. 116/12, and application by the petitioner for poor person relief.

Ordered that the application for poor person relief is granted to the extent that the filing fee imposed by CPLR 8022 (b) is waived, and the application is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements.

The extraordinary remedy of mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial act, and only where there exists a clear legal right to the relief sought *(see Matter of Legal Aid Socy. of Sullivan County v Scheinman,*53 NY2d 12, 16 [1981]).

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought. Skelos, J.B, Dillon, Dickerson and Austin, JJ., concur.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go 

to press. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 23-BG-0479

IN RE DAVID T. SCHLENDORF

DDN:045-23

A Suspended Member of the Bar of the 

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg. No. 463998

BEFORE: McLeese and Deahl, Associate Judges, and Washington, Senior Judge. 

O R D E R

(FILED— August 17, 2023)

On consideration of the certified order from the state of New Jersey 

permanently disbarring respondent by consent; this court’s June 16, 2023, order

suspending respondent pending disposition of this matter and directing him to show 

cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed; and the statement of 

Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent has not filed a response or 

his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, it is 

ORDERED that David T. Schlendorf is hereby disbarred from the practice of 

law in the District of Columbia. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483, 487-88 (D.C. 2010)

(explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical 

discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 

194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (explaining that a rebuttable presumption of identical 

reciprocal discipline applies unless one of the exceptions is established). It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that, for purposes of reinstatement, Mr. Schlendorf’s

disbarment will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully 

complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). 

PER CURIAM
1 In 1991, Louisiana's legislature excluded franchise contracts from the scope of section 921,

see id. § 921(E) (West Supp.1993), but the parties executed the contract at issue in this case

before 1991. See Alexandria Anesthesia Serv. v. Firmin, 576 So.2d 1236, 1237 (La.App. 3d

Cir.1991) (Amendments to section 921 are not retroactive.). United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

No. 92-3728

Summary Calendar.

In the Matter of TASTEE DONUTS, INC., Debtor Tastee Donuts, Inc., Appellant,

v.

Linda Leaumont PRICE, Wife of/and Thomas L. Price, Appellees.

May 6, 1993.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before REAVLEY, JONES and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge:

One question of law determines the outcom e of this appeal: whether the prohibition against

covenants not to compete contai ned i n L A .R EV .S TAT .A NN

. § 23:921 (West 1985) 1 applies to

franchise contracts in the absence of an employment relationship between the contracting parties. The

district court held that the section 921 prohibition applied to covenants not to compete in franchise

agreements that create no employment relationship. The court only cited F ine v. Property Damage

Appraisers, Inc., 393 F.Supp. 1304, 1311 (E.D.La.1975) in support of its decision. No Louisiana

court has followed Fine's discussion concerning the scope of section 921. But a Louisiana court has

held to the contrary: "[section] 921 applies only to persons in employee-employer relationships and

will not be extended to other relationships by judicial construction or interpretation." S impson v.

Kelly Services, Inc., 339 So.2d 490, 495 (La.App. 2d Cir.1976), writ denied, 341 So.2d 1 121

(La.1977); s ee also NAPASCO Int'l, Inc., Western Div. v. Maxson, 420 So.2d 1276, 1278-79

(La.App. 3d Cir.1982) (agreeing with Simpson as to the limit ed scope of section 921, but finding an

employment relationship); cf. Winston v. Bourgeois, Bennett, Thokey and Hickey, 432 So.2d 936,940 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983) (Louisiana courts will examine the actu a l nature of the relationship

between contracting parties to decide whether section 921 applies, regardless of the contract form

or the contracting party's title.). This court has followed S impson in deciding that section 921 does

not govern independent-contractor relationships. T aquino v. Teledyne Monarch Rubber, 893 F.2d

1488, 1497-98 (5th Cir.1990).

REVERSED and REMANDED.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

(PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

 

(Subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

 

Pursuant to section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer ofApogee Technology, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), doeshereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The quarterly report onForm 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the “Form 10-QSB”)of the Company fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
|   | Dated: November 14, 2007 |   |   |                                       |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |                     |   | /s/    | Herbert M. Stein                           |   |
|   |                     |   |   | Herbert M. Stein                           |
|   |                     |   |   | Chairman of the Board,                     |
|   |                     |   |   | President, Chief Executive Officer         |
|   |                     |   |   | (principal executive officer)              |
|   |                     |   |   |                                       |
|   | Dated: November 14, 2007 |   | /s/    | Paul J. Murphy                             |   |
|   |                     |   |   | Paul J. Murphy                             |
|   |                     |   |   | Chief Financial Officer and Vice President |
|   |                     |   |   | Finance (principal financial officer and   |
|   |                     |   |   | principal accounting officer)              |
|        |                          |        |        |                                            |  |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
97-44.

#### State v. King.

Cuyahoga App. No. 68726. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion granted.

Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
#### Nandkumar Ramkumar, Appellant, v Grand Style Transportation Enterprises Inc. et al., Respondents. Grand Style Transportation Enterprises Inc. et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v Georgina D. Castillo, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Submitted April 29, 2013;

decided May 2, 2013

Motion by Defense Association of New York, Inc. for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed.
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of China Granite Corporation a Nevada
corporation  (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending December 31,
2003,  as  filed  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"), Dong Chen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to
the  best  of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to  ss.  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  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 result of operations of
          the  Company.

A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  China  Granite  Corporation, and will be retained by China Granite
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon  request.


/s/ Dong Chen
--------------------------
Dong Chen
Chief Executive Officer
January 18, 2005



<PAGE>
No. 5036.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### VACANT ESTATE OF ARMAND RAMAR.

E. T. Florance for appellee.

Pierson, Walton & Pierson for appellant.

*425DUFOUR, J.

The adjudicatee of certain real estate sold by order of Court herein, appeals from a judgment compelling .her to take title, and she urges that the order of sale was not supported by sufficient evidence that the party whose estate was being administered was an absentee.

On the trial of the íule, over objection by the adjudicatee that evidence to support the order could not be supplied after the sale, evidence was introduced to show that the party had not been heard of for more than ten years; that the directories for years back showed no entry of his name; that the assessment of the property, bought by Ramar in 1848, has for many years back been under the caption of “Unknown”; that no one.opposed the appointment of the' curator, and that the property was about to be sold for taxes.

The fact of absenteeism is sufficiently established, and sufficient need of a curator to preserve the property is shown.

The ground of objection to the admissibility of the evidence has already been passed on by this Court adversely to the contention now made.

In Vacant Estate of Meyer, No. 4600 of our Docket, not yet reported, we said, under similar circumstances:

> “There is a vast distinction between the subsequent ratification of a bad title acquired at a judicial sale, and the subsequent administration of proof to establish the validity of the title at the time of sale. In the one case, not being bound by an imperfect contract, a ratification cannot be forced on the adjudicatee against his will. In the other case, being bound by a perfect contract, the adjudicatee cam not object to evidence which tends to establish the validity, at the time of making the contract, of the contract itself. ’ ’

*426May 16, 1910.

Suc. of Gaines, 121 La. 121, refers to the ratification of a void title, and is, hence, inapplicable.

By agreement of counsel, the costs of the lower Court are to be borne by the estate.

The adjudicatee must comply with the adjudication.

Judgment affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael R. Kramer, Acting Chief Financial Officer of ATS Medical, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); andThe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.     Date: May 9, 2007         /s/ Michael R. Kramer       Name: Michael R. Kramer  Title: Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### Floyd *v.*Alexander, Warden.

[Cite as *Floyd v. Alexander*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 1201.]

(No. 96-2695

Submitted January 7, 1997

Decided March 19, 1997.)

*A.I. Floyd, pro se.*

The cause is dismissed *sua sponte.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

Lundberg Stratton, J., concurs separately.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

concurring. I respectfully concur in the dismissal of this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. However, I am reluctant because the allegations, if true, constitute a colorable claim for relief. The petition alleges that in an entry filed on July 29, 1987, petitioner was sentenced for burglary to five to fifteen years, to be served concurrently with the sentence he was then serving. In an amended entry filed on September 2, 1987, petitioner was sentenced for the same burglary to four to fifteen years, to be served consecutively with the sentence he was then serving. Petitioner claims that he did not appear and was not represented in any resentencing proceedings.

Petitioner filed this action for writ of habeas corpus in December 1996, claiming that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend his sentence as it did. The petitioner has not chosen the proper forum in which to raise this claim, as habeas corpus is not available to attack sentencing errors. Rather, the proper avenue is postconviction relief in the trial court.