alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Anthony P. LaTorre et al., Respondents, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents, and Rite Aid, Inc., Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 725]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Rite Aid, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), dated August 13, 2004, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against the defendant Rite Aid, Inc., is granted.

On July 1, 2000 at approximately 6:00 a.m., the plaintiff Anthony P LaTorre was walking on the sidewalk on 4th Avenue in Brooklyn in front of a store leased by the defendant Rite Aid, Inc. (hereinafter Rite Aid), taking his customary route, when he tripped and fell on an area of the sidewalk which included a raised subway grating approximately two to three inches high *970with cracked cement between gratings. After serving notices of claim in September 2000 upon the defendants City of New York (hereinafter the City) and the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA), the plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff Anthony P. LaTorre and derivative loss allegedly sustained by his wife, the plaintiff Marie LaTorre.

Rite Aid moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court denied Rite Aid’s motion. We reverse.

Rite Aid demonstrated, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *Jordan v City of New York,*23 AD3d 436 [2005]). The opposing proof submitted by the plaintiffs and the NYCTA and the City was speculative and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Jordan v City of New*York, *supra; Kaminer v Dan's Supreme Supermarket/Key Food,*253 AD2d 657 [1998]; *Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]; *cf. McCoy v City of New York,*38 AD2d 961 [1972]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted Rite Aid’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it. Ritter, J.E, Luciano, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 117 (Friday, June 19, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29190-29191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14439]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DoD-2008-OS-0141]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 20, 
2009.
    Title And OMB Number: Waiver/Remission of Indebtedness Application, 
DD Form 2789; OMB Control Number 0730-0009.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 7,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 7,000.
    Average Burden Per Response: 1.4429 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 10,100.
    Needs and Uses: Used by current or former DoD civilian employees or 
military members to request waiver or remission of an indebtedness owed 
to the Department of Defense. Under 5 U.S.C. 5584, 10 U.S.C. 2774, and 
32 U.S.C. 716, certain debts arising out of erroneous payments may be 
waived. Under 10 U.S.C. 4837, 10 U.S.C. 6161, and 10 U.S.C. 9837, 
certain debts may be remitted. Information obtained through this form 
is used in adjudicating the request for waiver or remission.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.


[[Page 29191]]


    Dated: May 31, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-14439 Filed 6-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                         14,046,868
<SECURITIES>                                   000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  50,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   000
<INVENTORY>                                    000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               14,096,868
<PP&E>                                         000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14,146,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,219,068
<BONDS>                                        000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          000
<PREFERRED>                                    000
<COMMON>                                       000
<OTHER-SE>                                     12,927,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14,146,851
<SALES>                                        000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,106,874
<CGS>                                          000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               398,320
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                10,734,151
<INCOME-TAX>                                   000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            10,734,151
<DISCONTINUED>                                 000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                000
<CHANGES>                                      000
<NET-INCOME>                                   10,734,151
<EPS-BASIC>                                    2.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  2.17


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 338 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2009 

Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act to modify 

the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton 

Rancheria of California is deemed to be held in trust 

and to provide for the conduct of certain activities on 

the land. 

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


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

S 338 RFH

1 SECTION 1. LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA. 

2 Section 819 of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act 

3 (Public Law 106–568; 114 Stat. 2919) is amended— 

4 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘Notwith5 standing’’ and inserting the following: 

6 ‘‘(a) ACCEPTANCE OF LAND.—Notwithstanding’’; 

7 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘The 

8 Secretary’’ and inserting the following: 

9 ‘‘(b) DECLARATION.—The Secretary’’; and 

10 (3) by striking the third sentence and inserting 

11 the following: 

12 ‘‘(c) TREATMENT OF LAND FOR PURPOSES OF CLASS

13 II GAMING.— 

14 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), 

15 notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

16 Lytton Rancheria of California may conduct activi17 ties for class II gaming (as defined in section 4 of 

18 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 

19 2703)) on the land taken into trust under this sec20 tion. 

21 ‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT.—The Lytton Rancheria of 

22 California shall not expand the exterior physical 

23 measurements of any facility on the Lytton 

24 Rancheria in use for class II gaming activities on 

25 the date of enactment of this paragraph. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

S 338 RFH

1 ‘‘(d) TREATMENT OF LAND FOR PURPOSES OF

2 CLASS III GAMING.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), for 

3 purposes of class III gaming (as defined in section 4 of 

4 the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)), the 

5 land taken into trust under this section shall be treated, 

6 for purposes of section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regu7 latory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719), as if the land was acquired 

8 on October 9, 2003, the date on which the Secretary took 

9 the land into trust.’’. 

Passed the Senate March 12, 2009. 

Attest: NANCY ERICKSON, 

Secretary. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Exhibit 3(i)

ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

OF

ITRONICS INC.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Business Corporation Act, theundersigned Corporation adopts the following Articles of Amendment to its Articles ofIncorporation:

FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Itronics Inc.

SECOND: Article IV of the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation isamended by deleting the first paragraph, under the heading "SHARES", in itsentirety and a new first paragraph is substituted therefore which reads as set forth inExhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

THIRD: The amendment to the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation wasadopted by its shareholders on May 6, 2008.

FOURTH: (a) The number of shares of record were 999,996,999 shares ofcommon stock.

(b) The number of shares entitled to vote on the Amendment were999,996,999 shares of common stock. 

(c) There were no shares entitled to vote as a class other than thecommon stock.

FIFTH: (a) The number of common shares voting for the Amendment were673,936,930, the number of common shares voting against the Amendment were 195,187,789,and the number of common shares abstaining were 7,044,763.

(b) There was no class of shares entitled to vote on the Amendmentother than the common shares.

SIXTH: The Amendment did not provide for an exchange, reclassificationor cancellation of issued shares.

SEVENTH: The Amendment provided for a change in the par value from onemill ($0.001) to one-tenth of a mill ($0.0001)

 

ITRONICS INC.

 

                                                                                                               By: /S/ JOHN W. WHITNEY
                                                                                                                       Dr. John W. Whitney, President

41
**Exhibit "A"**
AMENDMENT TO THE

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF

ITRONICS INC.

ARTICLE IV

SHARES

 

The total number of shares of capital stock which the Corporation isauthorized to issue is to consist of twenty billion (20,000,000,000) shares of commonstock, with a par value of one tenth of a mill ($0.0001) per share (the "CommonStock"), and one million (1,000,000) shares of Preferred Stock, with a par value ofone mill ($0.001) per share (the "Preferred Stock"). The Board of Directors isauthorized to issue the capital stock of the Corporation from time to time in such amountsas the Board of Directors may determine for any purpose allowed by law.

 

42
#### In the Matter of State of New York, Respondent, v William W., Appellant.

Decided May 7, 2013

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Fernando Antwaine HAYES, a/k/a Chuck, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-6143.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2006.

Decided: June 29, 2006.

Fernando Antwaine Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Fernando Antwaine Hayes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu*365tional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hayes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
_.n__ - nu - r---H--- _ __ __'n. ._"'uu'

(;)

July 6, 2005

A.D. Ellis

Principal Chief, Muskogee (Creek) Nation

P.O. Box 580

(HWY 75, Loop 56)

Okmulgee, OK 74447

Re: Amendment to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's Gaming Ordinance;

NCA 05-051

Dear Principal Chief Ellis:

This letter is in response to your request that the National Indian Gaming Commission

("NIGC") review and approve a recent amendment to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation's

gaming ordinance. The amendment, NCA 05-051, was adopted on March 19,2005, and

approved on March 28,2005, by the National Council of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

The amendment was received by the NIGC on April 20, 2005.

The Chainnan of the NIGC approved the Nation's original gaming ordinance on

November 3,.1994, and an amended ordinance on February 22,2002. This letter

constitutes approval of the submitted amendment, NCA 05-051, under the Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act, 25 D.S.C. § 2701 et seq.

cc: Acting Attorney General Shannon Cozzoni

NATIONALHEADQUARTERS1441 L51. NW, Suite 9100. Washington. DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NIGC.GOV

REGIONALOFRCES Portland,OR;Sacramento,CA;Phoenix,AZ;51.Paul,MN;Tulsa,OK
#### Henry *v.*Travelers’ Ins. Co.

*(Circuit Court, D. Colorado.*

May 16, 1888.)

1. Equity-Practice — Books and Parers — Records of Corporation not a Party.

The court will not grant a motion to compel the opening of the records of a corporation not a party to the suit, but whose records it is claimed would disclose something of importance to the litigation.

2. Set-Off and Counter-Claim—Judgments for Costs. •

Where A. has judgment for costs against B., and B. has a like judgment in another case against A., one may be equitably set oil against the other *pro tanto;*particularly where one of the parties is insolvent.

In Equity. On motions.

*Wolcott & Vaite,*for complainant.

*J. P. fírockway*and *Patterson &*Thomas, for defendant.

Brewer, J.

In *Henry*v. *Insurance Co.*are two or three motions which were, partially at least, submitted to me during the vacation. One is a motion to compel the opening of certain records of a corporation not a party to the suit, but whose records it is claimed would disclose something of importance to the litigation. I overruled that motion temporarily during vacation, and after hearing fuller statements of counsel the other day, I am strengthened in the opinion that I then had, not merely by the fact that tills is the record of an independent corporation not a ■party to this suit, but also by the fact of the manner in which this title has passed from one to another, and has finally come to he in the corporation. That motion will remain overruled as heretofore. In reference to the costs, there being an interlocutory decree in favor of complainant for costs up to date, the draft of the decree prepared by each counsel containing the same provision, I accepted that prepared by the complainant, and after making some changes, signed it. It would be an extreme case that would call upon the court to change a decree thus prepared and entered, and I see no reason why it should be changed. The complainant is entitled to the payment of his costs. The second motion in reference to those costs is that there be ordered an equitable set-off of costs adjudged in another case between the same parties. The matter of set-off depends upon purely equitable principles, and I do not see any reason why it is not equitable that there should be such a set-off. If A. has a judgment in his favor against B., and B. has a judgment in his favor against A., there is no wrong in setting off one against the other *pro tanto.*If each party is solvent, of course it makes no difference, fjnd if one is not, the equitable reasons for the set-off are only stronger. The motion, therefore, in respect to that set-off *pro tanto*is sustained. The third motion is in reference to some garnishee proceedings. I do not think a judgment for costs can be subjected to such garnishee proceedings, and that motion will be overruled.
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop #1621 Washington, DC 20240 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NIGC.GOV

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK; Oklahoma City, OK

July 17, 2020 

VIA E-MAIL ONLY

Bryan A. Polite, Council of Trustees Chairman 

Shinnecock Indian Nation 

P.O. Box 5006 

Southampton, NY 11969-5006 

Re: Shinnecock Indian Nation Gaming Ordinance 

Dear Chairman Polite:

This letter is to inform you that the Shinnecock Indian Nation’s Gaming Ordinance, enacted by 

Resolution #2020-011 on April 8, 2020 is approved by operation of law. 

Pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and NIGC regulations, the Chairman has ninety 

days from the date of submission to either approve or disapprove a gaming ordinance.1

 Any ordinance not 

acted upon at the end of the ninety-day period is considered approved by the Chairman, but only to the 

extent that it is consistent with IGRA and NIGC regulations.2 The NIGC received the Gaming Ordinance 

on April 17, 2020. The 90-day deadline to approve or disapprove the ordinance is July 16, 2020. Because 

the Chairman took no action within the ninety-day period, the Nation’s gaming ordinance is approved to 

the extent it is consistent with IGRA and NIGC regulations. 

It is the Office of General Counsel’s opinion that while the Nation’s Gaming Ordinance is 

substantially compliant with IGRA, the Nation did not submit copies of all tribal gaming regulations. 

Please submit a copy of the Nation’s gaming regulations upon enactment.

Thank you for submitting the Gaming Ordinance. If you have any questions, please contact 

Senior Attorney Maria Getoff at 703-338-7748. 

Sincerely,

Michael Hoenig

General Counsel

cc: Greg Smith, HOBBS, STRAUS, DEAN & WALKER, LLP

1 25 U.S.C. § 2710(e); 25 C.F.R. § 522.9.

2 Id.
Exhibit 10.7


 


GENERAL AGREEMENT


 


Between


 


Arkadia International and Alless Coach


 


This General Agreement (“Agreement”) of
business activity is made as of the 15th day of March 2013, by and between two independent companies, Arkadia International
Nevada Corp. and Alless Coach California LLC.


 


RECITALS


 


The parties have agreed to make together export-import
business and to conduct its business in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement.


 


TERMS OF AGREEMENT


 


1. Address


 


For Arkadia International: Their principal office- 5348 VEGAS
DR. LAS VEGAS, NV 89108


 


For Alless Coach: 24888 Alicia Parkway, Laguna Hills, CA 92653


 


2. Purpose. The Parties is organized for the following purpose:


 


Provide a high quality domestic and international sales,
import/export and custom cars by clients request.


 


Alless Coach will provide the service for tuning and upgrade
of cars by Arkadia International request.


 


Arkadia International will assist in finding buyers for Alless
Coach and assist with shipping.


 


Rider A


 


Rate and charges for the service will be reasonable and
be approximately equivalent to the prevailing rates and charges for the same type of service. Rates will be agreed upon at
the time that services are requested by Arkadia International.


 


The sides may enter into, make and perform all contracts and
all other undertakings and engage in any and all transactions that may deem necessary or advisable to carry out its purposes.


 


3. Terms. The agreement shall continue during 3 years.


 


4. Accounts. the capital profits and contributions,
cash flow, profits and losses, reflects in Balance Sheets, Statements of Operations, Statements of Stockholders’ Equity
and Statements of Cash Flows.


 


5. Managing. The general management, control and conduct of
all business deals shall be conducted jointly.


 


6. Withdrawal from Agreement. Each company may notice to each
other at least seventy-five (75) days prior to the last day of any fiscal year, elect to withdraw from the Agreement.


 


7. Causes for Termination. The agreement shall be terminated
upon the earlier of:


 


a. The incompetency, insolvency or death of all the
directors; or


 


b. The decree of any court of competent jurisdiction
directing the dissolution or termination of the Agreement; or


 


c. Execution of a written declaration of intention to
terminate the Agreement by one or both of the sides; or


 


EXECUTION


 


Intending to be legally bound, the parties executed this
Agreement whereupon it entered into full force and effect in accordance with its terms as of March 15, 2013


 


	Arkadia
    International Inc.	Alless Coach
	5348
    Vegas Drive #1107, Las Vegas, NV 89108	24888
                                                          Alicia Parkway, Lagunal Hills, CA 92653
	/s/
    Vladimir Shekhtman	/s/
                                          Andrei A. Stoukan 
	Vladimir
    Shekhtman (Director) 1-619-507-5806	Andrei
                                                   A. Stoukan (Director) 1-949-951-0191