alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Phon-Net.com Exhibit 10.4





                                  Exhibit 10.4

                              CONSULTING AGREEMENT
       This Consulting Agreement (the "Agreement") is entered into this 31st day
of October 2001 is by and amongst PHON-NET. COM, INC. (the "Company") and Sloan
Young (The "Consultant").
       WHEREAS, Consultant has agreed to serve as the Company's vice president
of operations; and
       WHEREAS, the Company desires to retain the Consultant subject to the
terms of this Agreement;
       NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein
and other good and valuable consideration receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged
it is agreed.
       1. The Company hereby engages the Consultant and the Consultant hereby
accepts this engagement to serve as the Company's vice president of operations.
Consultant shall be responsible for managing the various divisions of the
Company. Consultant shall be primarily responsible for hiring decisions and
overseeing the day to day operations of the Company. Consultant will always be
subject to the direction of the Company's president and Board of Directors.
Consultant will be expected to work no less than 35 hours per week.
       2. In consideration of the services to be provided, Consultant shall
receive as compensation for services rendered a total of 250,000 shares of the
Company's common stock.
       3. The Company will register these shares pursuant to a registration
statement on Form S-8.
       4. Except as otherwise provided herein, any notice or other communication
to any party pursuant to or relating to this Agreement and the transactions
provided for herein shall be deemed to have been given or delivered when
deposited in the United States Mail, registered or certified, and with proper
postage and registration or certification fees prepaid, addressed at their
principal place of business or to such other address as may be designated by
either party in writing.
       5. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted pursuant to the
laws of the state of Florida. By entering into this Agreement, the parties agree
to the jurisdiction of the Alberta courts with venue in Calgary, Alberta. In the
event of any breach of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
recover all costs including reasonable attorney's fees.
       6. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which when so executed an delivered shall be deemed an original, and it shall
not be necessary, in making proof of this Agreement to produce or account for
more than one counterpart.
       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have subscribed their hands an
seals the day and year first above written.

       CONSULTANT:                               COMPANY:
                                                 PHON-NET.COM, INC.
       /s/Sloan Young                            /s/Todd Violette
       --------------                            ----------------
       Sloan Young                               Todd Violette, pres
Labor Employer Reporting Instructions

Part V - Reports of Creditable Service and Compensation 

Chapter 1: General Information about Types of Reporting Media

1

Reporting Media

Service and compensation may be reported by using one of following media: 

 3480 or 3490 compatible cartridge; 

 3 1⁄2" floppy diskette; 

 CD-ROM; 

 Paper form; 

 Internet Employer Reporting System (ERS) (See Part VIII); 

 Secure E-mail; 

 File Transfer Protocol (FTP) 

The conventional magnetic tape reels (1600 or 6250 BPI) are not acceptable. 

Paper forms can be obtained in the following manner: 

 Download the form; or 

 Send Form G-615, Employer's Supply Requisition, to the address shown on the 

form. You may photocopy the exhibit of Form G-615 to request your initial 

supply of the forms. Allow seven to ten days to receive the requested forms. 

To use ERS, see Part VIII of these instructions. To obtain a copy of the RRB Employer 

Reporting Program on CD-ROM, contact:

Quality Reporting Service Center

Railroad Retirement Board 

844 North Rush Street 7th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275

Phone: (312) 751-4992

Fax: (312) 751-7123

E-mail: QRSC@rrb.gov

Instructions

All of the instructions for completion of the paper forms are included on the forms themselves. 

When using disks or CD-Rom for reporting, data files must be in ASCII character format. The 

format instructions for using automated media are in the Appendix I for each type of report you 

file.
Supreme Court ofthe United States

Office ofthe Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

July 21, 2015

Clerk

Court ofAppeals of Texas, First District

301 Fannin Street

Houston, TX 77002-2066

Re: Earl Charles Martin

v. Texas

No. 15-5305

(Your No. 01-14-00202-CR)

Scott S. Harris

Clerk ofthe Court

(202) 479-301 ^LEDW

1ST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON. TEXAS

JUL 8.7 2015

ran

Dear Clerk:

The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on May

7, 2015 and placed on the docket July 21, 2015 as No. 15-5305.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

by Oua^-

Andrew Downs

Case Analyst
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ADRIANA NEVAREZ,

 Appellant,

v.

JESUS CARRERA,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-09-00143-CV

Appeal from the

34th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2009-1614) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 

42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellant

represents that the parties have reached an agreement to settle and requests that this Court dismiss

the appeal. Appellee has not objected to the motion, and there is no indication that dismissal would

prevent Appellee from seeking the relief to which he would otherwise be entitled. We therefore

grant Appellant’s motion, and dismiss the appeal. As the motion does not indicate the parties have

agreed otherwise, costs will be taxed against Appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

December 16, 2009

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Rita T., Appellant, v Commissioner of Administration for Children's Services of the City of New York, Respondent.

[854 NYS2d 344]

The court’s determination that it was in the best interests of *328the children to deny custody to petitioner, their maternal grandmother, was amply supported by the record evidence, including the positive environment provided by the foster mother, who had cared for the children for the majority of their lives and tended to their special needs, and her stated desire to adopt the children *(see Matter of Luz Maria V.,*23 AD3d 192 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 710 [2006]). Further, petitioner visited the children infrequently and was unaware of their needs. Previously, the Family Court had made a finding of neglect against her with regard to two of the children. Petitioner also admitted that rather than permanently caring for the children, she hoped to return them to their mother, whose parental rights to the children were terminated following a finding of permanent neglect.

We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur-Tom, J.P., Buckley, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000021

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFSHORE ART, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DRINK ENTERPRISES LLC,

a Hawai#i Limited Liability Company; Defendant-Appellant,

JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-10; DOE PARTNERSHIPS 1-10;

DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10; DOE ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 2CC181000307(2))

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that:

(1) On March 6, 2020, the circuit court clerk filed the

record on appeal;

(2) On March 9, 2020, the appellate clerk notified the

parties that the statement of jurisdiction and opening brief were

due on or before March 16, 2020, and April 15, 2020,

respectively;

(3) Defendant-Appellant Drink Enterprises LLC (Drink)

failed to file either document or request an extension of time; 

(4) On May 4, 2020, Plaintiff-Appellee Offshore Art,

LLC filed a Notice of Failure to File Jurisdictional Statement

and Opening Brief, which the court construes as a motion to

dismiss the appeal for failure to file the statement of

jurisdiction and opening brief (May 4, 2020 Motion);

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000021

03-JUN-2020

09:25 AM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(5) Drink did not file a response to the May 4, 2020

Motion;

(6) On May 13, 2020, the appellate clerk notified Drink

that the time for filing the statement of jurisdiction and

opening brief had expired, the matter would be called to the

court's attention on May 26, 2020, for appropriate action, which

could include dismissal of the appeal, under Hawai#i Rules of

Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and Drink could request

relief from default by motion; and

(7) Drink took no further action in this appeal.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is

dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are

dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 3, 2020.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Chief Judge

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

2
ex10.1

 

 PROMISSORY NOTE
 

 

 

 

  November 28, 2011
 

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Mascota Resources Corp., a Nevada Corporation, promises to pay Maria Ernestina Virgen Ponce, on or before December 31, 2013, the amount of Thirty Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00) in the currency of the United States, plus simple interest on the principal amount of this Promissory Note accrued at a rate of 6% per annum.
 

 Time shall be the essence of this Promissory Note.
 

 This Promissory Note shall be governed by and constituted in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada.
 

 

 MASCOTA RESOURCES CORP.
 

 

 Per /s/ María Ernestina Virgen Ponce
      María Ernestina Virgen Ponce, Pres., CEO, CFO
EXHIBIT
        33.1.2
  **Management’s
        Assertion of Compliance**
  Management
        of the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (the “ Company ”)
        is
        responsible for providing this platform-level assessment of compliance with
        the
        servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated
        by the
        Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Management
        has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable in regards
        to the platform for the following period:
 
 Platform :
        publicly-issued (i.e., transaction -level reporting initially required under
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential mortgage-backed
        securities, automobile loan or lease-backed securities and student loan-backed
        securities issued on or after January 1, 2006, for which the Company provides
        the following servicing functions (the “Platform”):
 
 ·  Paying
        agent, securities administration and trustee; or
 ·  Securities
        administration and paying agent; or
 ·  Paying
        agent and trustee; or
 ·  Paying
        agent.
 
 Applicable
        Servicing Criteria :
        All
        servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by the
        Item
        1122(d) servicing criteria in regards to the activities performed by the
        Company
        with respect to the Platform as to any transaction, excluding the following
        servicing criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv),
        1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(i), 1122(d)(4)(ii) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) through
        1122(d)(4)(xiv), (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”).
 
 Period :
        Twelve
        months ended December 31, 2006 (the “Period”).
 
 With
        respect to the Platform, the Company’s management provides the following
        assessment of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing
        Criteria:
 
 ·  The
        Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with
        the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.
 
 ·  The
        Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing
        Criteria as of and for the Period. In making this assessment, management
        used
        the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph
        (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.
 
 ·  Based
        on
        such assessment, as of and for the Period, the Company has complied, in all
        material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
 
 KPMG
        LLP,
        a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with
        respect to management’s assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing
        Criteria as of and for the Period.
 
 CITIBANK,
        N.A.
 
 By: /s/
        Jeffrey
        Volk
 Jeffrey Volk
 Its: Managing
        Director
 Dated: February
        28, 2007
@article{1211241,
  author = {Savannah Wessies and Jiann C. Yang},
  title = {Convective Heat Transfer Correlation for a Single Surrogate Firebrand and a Simplified Firebrand Pile on a Flat Plate Using Naphthalene Sublimation in Heated Air Flow},
  year = {2023},
  number = {140},
  month = {2023-07-07 04:07:00},
  publisher = {Fire Safety Journal},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936325},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2023.103858},
  language = {en},
}
#### Norex Petroleum Limited, Appellant, v Leonard Blavatnik et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 24, 2013;

decided September 12, 2013

Motion by Jonathan R. Siegel for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the 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





The
undersigned, Eugene Malobrodsky, the Chief Executive Officer of INTELLIGENT
BUYING. INC.  (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:





1.
The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009
(the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 18th day of
May 2009.





/s/Eugene
      MalobrodskyEugene
      MalobrodskyPrincipal
      Executive Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Intelligent Buying, Inc. and will be retained by Intelligent Buying, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### J. SCHOENEMAN, Inc., v. BRAUER et al.

No. 401.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

May 21, 1940.

*293Samuels & Clark (formerly Stewart & Stewart), of Baltimore, Md., and Arthur C. Brown, of Kansas City, Mo>, for plaintiff.

Myer M. Rich, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendants.

REEVES, District Judge.

The question in this case arises on the motion of the defendant to strike interrogatories propounded by plaintiff. The main complaint is that the interrogatories are numerically excessive and that, moreover, irrelevant and immaterial matter is called for, as well as mere opinion.

Each of the interrogatories has been examined. With two exceptions they seek to elicit facts which appear to be material in the trial of the case. The exceptions are those numbered 49 and 50 as they call for mere opinions as to the validity of the registered trade-mark and also seek an opinion on the right of registration of plaintiff’s alleged trade-mark. Answer to these therefore will not be required.

Rule No. 33 of the Rules of Federal Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, has been interpreted by the courts as being just as broad in its implications as in the case of depositions. This means that the distinction between a search for evidentiary facts and an inquiry into ultimate facts has been abolished.

It makes no difference, therefore, how many interrogatories are propounded. If the inquiries are pertinent the opposing party cannot complain.

Typical of the interrogatories propounded is the first one, which is as follows :

> “With which, if any, of the following named companies or concerns were the defendants, or either of them, formerly associated:

> “(a) Brauer & Gressman Cap Manufacturing Company,

> “(b) Knickerbocker Spat Manufacturing Co.

> “(c) Brauer-Gressman-Cohn, Inc.

> “(d) Brauer-Gressman-Cohn, a partnership.”

This would be competent evidence if depositions were taken upon the pleadings as now made up. Since the rule with respect to interrogatories is just as wide in its scope as in the matter of depositions, then the inquiries would be competent here.

Mr. Alexander Holtzoff, Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States, has made a very splendid collation and compilation of the authorities on the construction of the Rules of Federal Procedure. His discussion of this particular subject is very illuminating and may be found under Section 2, page 87 of his publication, which, incidentally, was made under the authority of the American Bar Association.

See, \ also, Judge Duffy’s opinion in Chandler et al. v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc., D.C., 31 F.Supp. 453.

As indicated above, the motion to strike will be sustained only as to interrogatories numbered 49-and 50. It will be overruled as to all others.
#### Mr. San, LLC, et al., Respondents, v Zucker & Kwestel, LLP, et al., Appellants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[977 NYS2d 328]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice and aiding and abetting fraud, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), dated August 2, 2012, as denied those branches of their motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the first cause of action, which was to recover damages for legal malpractice, and pursuant to CPLR 1001 to direct the plaintiffs to join BarCred Holdings Affiliates, LLC, as a party plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), “dismissal is warranted only if the documentary evidence submitted conclusively establishes a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law” *(Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]). In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court must “accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory” *(Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d at 87-88).

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) to dismiss the first cause of action, which sought to recover damages for legal malpractice. While the complaint does not allege an attorney-client relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants, it sets forth a claim *797which falls within “the narrow exception of fraud, collusion, malicious acts or other special circumstances” under which a cause of action alleging attorney malpractice may be asserted absent a showing of privity *(Ginsburg Dev. Cos., LLC v Carbone,*85 AD3d 1110, 1112 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Aranki v Goldman & Assoc., LLP,*34 AD3d 510, 511-512 [2006]; *Griffith v Medical Quadrangle,*5 AD3d 151, 152 [2004]). Furthermore, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants does not conclusively establish a defense to this cause of action as a matter of law *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [1]).

Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 1001 to direct the plaintiffs to join BarCred Holdings Affiliates, LLC (hereinafter BarCred), as a party plaintiff. The defendants failed to demonstrate that BarCred needed to be joined in order to accord complete relief between the parties, or that BarCred would be inequitably affected by a judgment in this action absent its joinder *(see*CPLR 1001 [a]; *Mason Tenders Dist. Council Welfare Fund v Diamond Constr. & Maintenance, Inc.,*84 AD3d 754, 755 [2011]; *Spector v Toys “R” Us, Inc.,*12 AD3d 358, 359 [2004]; *O’Brien v Town of Huntington,*308 AD2d 479, 481 [2003]). Rivera, J.E, Hall, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 32119(U).]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1466

In re: RIGOBERTO HERNANDEZ-PORTILLO, a/k/a Tiny, a/k/a 

Carlos Antonio Martinez, a/k/a Rigoberto H. Portillo,

 Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(No. 1:07-cr-00081-GBL-4)

Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rigoberto Hernandez-Portillo, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Rigoberto Hernandez-Portillo petitions for a writ of 

mandamus seeking an order granting him inter alia relief in his 

criminal proceeding. We conclude that Hernandez-Portillo is not 

entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used 

only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States 

Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. 

Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, 

mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a 

clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan 

Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Moreover, mandamus 

may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed 

Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

The relief sought by Hernandez-Portillo is not 

available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for 

writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED