alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Shefa Unlimited, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Amsterdam & Lewinter et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[856 NYS2d 118]

*522In the proposed second amended complaint, the plaintiffs sought, in effect, to assert a new cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice. However, that cause of action was time-barred *(see*CPLR 214 [6]). Moreover, the original complaint did not give the appellants notice of the alleged transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions and occurrences that formed the basis for the new cause of action *(see*CPLR 203 [f]). Under these circumstances, where the proposed pleading was not a *“mere expansion”*of the allegations in the original complaint, and thus, did not “relate back” to that pleading, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting the amendment *(Krioutchkova v Gaad Realty Corp.,*28 AD3d 427, 428 [2006]). Indeed, although leave to amend a pleading is to be freely granted, leave should be denied where, as here, the opponent would suffer prejudice or surprise resulting directly from the delay in seeking leave, or the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit *(see*CPLR 3025 [b]; *Nissenbaum v Ferazzoli,*171 AD2d 654, 655 [1991]; *Barnes v County of Nassau,*108 AD2d 50, 52 [1985]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
NO. 03-15-00053-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN 

******************************************************* 

CAUSE NO. 71,785 

IN THE 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF 

BELL COUNTY, TEXAS 

******************************************************* 

KEVIN DUANE DRISDALE APPELLANT 

VS. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE 

******************************************************* 

APPELLANT’S FOURTH MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF 

 COMES NOW Appellant, KEVIN DUAN DRISDALE, by and 

through his attorney of record, James H. Kreimeyer, and 

respectfully moves the Court to extend the time for 

filing the Appellant’s Brief in this cause, and in 

support hereof would show the Court as follows: 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00053-CR

6217748

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

7/24/2015 2:59:30 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 7/24/2015 2:59:30 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
I. 

On December 8, 2014, Appellant entered a plea 

pursuant to a plea bargain with the prosecutor and 

approved by the Court, and the punishment assessed was 

twenty years (20) in the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice, Institutional Division. The trial court’s

certificate of Appellant’s Right to Appeal granted 

Appellant’s appeal of the denial of the Motion to 

Suppress. The original notice of appeal filed on 

behalf of Appellant on January 5, 2015, did not address 

the right to appeal denial of a pre-trial motion. 

II. 

An Amended Notice of Appeal was filed on March 31, 

2015, with the Third Court of Criminal Appeals in 

Austin. A third Motion for Extension to File Brief was 

e-filed on June 24, 2015. On June 24, 2015, the court 

reporter completed the record in this cause. 

Appellant’s Brief is due for filing with the Court of 

Appeals on July 27, 2015. 
III. 

Appellant’s attorney would respectfully request an 

extension of time to file Appellant’s brief for the

following reason: Previous motions for extension to

file Appellant’s brief were based on court reporter not 

having completed the reporter’s record of a motion to 

suppress. Appellate counsel needs an additional 30

days to review authorities and counsel’s legal 

assistant is going to be out on vacation and final 

draft cannot be completed and e-filed. 

This Motion for Extension of Time is not filed for 

the purpose of delay, but so that the ends of justice 

may be served. 

 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant requests

the Court to grant a thirty (30) day extension of time 

to file the brief herein until August 26, 2015. 

 
Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ James H. Kreimeyer 

 JAMES H. KREIMEYER 

 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

 P.O. BOX 727 

 BELTON, TEXAS 76513 

 (254) 939-9393 

 (254) 939-2870 FAX 

 T.S.B. #11722000 

 jkreime@vvm.com 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that a true and correct copy of

the foregoing Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time 

to File Brief was delivered to Henry Garza, District 

Attorney, Bell County Courthouse, Belton, Texas 76513, 

on the 24th day of July 2015. 

 

 /s/ James H. Kreimeyer 

 JAMES H. KREIMEYER 

 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
ELECTRONIC RECORD

SIS-/5"

57« -/5"

COA #14-14-00521-CR

STYLE: Gary Ishmael Bolin vThe State of Texas

COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed

DATE: March 19, 2015 Publish: No

OFFENSE: Aggravated Assault

COUNTY: Harris

th TRIAL COURT: 209"' District Court

TC CASE #: 1377493

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Gary Ishmael Bolin vThe State of Texas

CCA#

APPBLL/tHT'S Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: ot/tw/r

JUDGE: A(M UMS^.

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

PC:

DNP:

FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

NINA MORRA, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-59 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

BANK OF AMERICA, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

THE CLERK OF THE COURT has entered default in favor of the

plaintiff and against the defendant McCaffrey Properties (“MCP”). 

(See unnumbered dkt. entry following dkt. entry no. 10.) In

addition, the Court has entered judgment by default on the issue

of liability in favor of the plaintiff and against MCP. (See

dkt. entry no. 17, 12-16-11 Order.) The plaintiff’s claims

against the other defendants have been resolved. (See dkt. entry

no. 19, 1-5-12 Order.)

THE PLAINTIFF now moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure (“Rule”) 55(b)(2) for entry of judgment by default on

the issue of damages in her favor and against MCP. (See dkt.

entry no. 20, Notice of Mot.) The plaintiff has submitted proof

of her damages in support of the motion. (See dkt. entry no. 20,

Pl. Affidavit of Proof.)

MCP has not opposed the motion, even though the return date

was more than two weeks ago. The motion will be granted. The

Case 3:11-cv-00059-MLC-LHG Document 21 Filed 03/09/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 152
Court notes that MCP has an avenue available to it to contest the

entry of judgment against it, if appropriate. See Fed.R.Civ.P.

55(c) (stating court “may set aside a default judgment under Rule

60(b)”); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (setting forth grounds for

relief from final judgment). For good cause appearing, the Court

will issue an appropriate order and judgment.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: March 9, 2012

2

Case 3:11-cv-00059-MLC-LHG Document 21 Filed 03/09/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 153
Fliio IN COURT OF APPEALS

12th Court ofAppeals District

CATHY S. LUS

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

7/22/2015 COA No. 12-14-00232-CR

FOREMAN, FREDDIE JAMES Tr. Ct. No. 13CR-184 PD-0909-15

The appellant's pro se petition for discretionary review has this day been received

and filed.

• wrim ve

FILE COPY

Abel Acosta, Clerk

12TH COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

CATHY LUSK

1517 W. FRONT, ROOM 354

TYLER, TX 75701

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
#### The State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party *v.*Blackwell, Secy. of State.

[Cite as *State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell,*111 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2006-Ohio-4703.]

(No. 2006-1678

Submitted September 12, 2006

Decided September 12, 2006.)

On Motion to Quash Subpoenas.

{¶ 1} This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus in an expedited election case. Upon consideration of the motion of nonparties William M. Todd and Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., to quash relator’s subpoenas,

{¶ 2} It is ordered by the court that discovery and further briefing and filing of evidence pursuant to S.CtPrac.R. X(9) are stayed.

{¶ 3} It is further ordered that the parties shall file on or before September 19, 2006, briefs on the following issue:

{¶ 4} “Does the court have jurisdiction in this expedited election case to issue a writ of mandamus in light of the fact that the Ohio Elections Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over acts and failures to act under R.C. 3517.151 and 3517.153? See *State ex rel. Taft-O’Connor ’98 v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas*(1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 487, 700 N.E.2d 1232.”

{¶ 5} The parties shall file reply briefs on or before September 22, 2006. The briefs shall be personally served on opposing counsel on the same dates that they are filed with the court. No extensions of time shall be permitted.

Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.

O’Donnell, J., would also grant the motion to quash.

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.

Pfeifer, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 6} I dissent from the stay imposed sua sponte by this court. This is an expedited election case, and time is of the essence; the gathering of evidence need not be halted prior to this court’s making a determination about jurisdiction, *1202especially when no party has raised a jurisdictional issue. In the meantime, the movants can raise attorney-client privilege whenever necessary and applicable within the discovery process.

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P., and C. Craig Woods, for movants.

Resnick, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
exhibit 10.30



                                                                                                           EXHIBIT 10.30


                                                       AMENDMENT
                                                           TO
                                          NAVISTAR 1988 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR
                                                   STOCK OPTION PLAN



         Pursuant to resolution of the Board of Directors adopted on October 16, 2001, the Navistar 1998 Non-Employee
Director Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") is hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2002, as set forth below:

1.       Section 5 of the Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new Section 5:

5.       Number of Shares to be Granted
         ------------------------------

                  At each regularly scheduled December meeting of the Board, an option will be granted to each
                  non-employee director for four thousand (4,000) shares of Common Stock.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereby executed this Amendment on behalf of the Corporation this 17th
day of October, 2001.


                                            NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION


                                            By: /s/ Robert J. Perna
               -------------------------------------------------
                                            Name:  Robert J. Perna
                                            Its:  Secretary















                                                 E-19
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15889]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending 
Nominations and Related Actions

    Nominations for the following properties being considered for 
listing or related actions in the National Register were received by 
the National Park Service before June 20, 2009. Pursuant to section 
60.13 of 36 CFR Part 60, written comments concerning the significance 
of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation 
may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National 
Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., 
2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of 
Historic Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye St., NW., 8th floor, 
Washington, DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed 
comments should be submitted by July 22, 2009.

J. Paul Loether,
Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks 
Program.

COLORADO

Jefferson County

Brook Forest Inn, 8136 S. Brook Forest Rd., Evergreen, 09000567

Montrose County

Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Box Outfit Car No. 04414, 82800Q 83rd 
Rd., Cimarron Visitor Center, Curecanti National Recreation Center 
(CURE), Cimarron, 09000568

KENTUCKY

Clark County

Upper Reaches of Boone Creek Rural Historic District, (Clark County 
MRA) Upper Boone Creek vicinity, Winchester, 09000569

Fayette County

Upper Reaches of Boone Creek Rural Historic District, (Clark County 
MRA) Upper Boone Creek vicinity, Lexington, 09000569

Franklin County

Central Frankfort Historic District, Bounded by East and West 2nd 
St., Logan St., the Kentucky River, High St., and Mero St., 
Frankfort, 09000570

Shelby County

Hinton-Scearce House, (Shelby County MRA) 212 Adams Pike, 
Shelbyville, 09000571

NEW YORK

Albany County

Lustron Houses of Jermain Street Historic District, (Lustron Houses 
in New York MPS) 1,3,5,7,8 Jermain St., Albany, 09000572

Columbia County

Dick House, 641 Co. Rte. 8, Germantown, 09000573

Herkimer County

Emmanuel Episcopal Church, 588 Albany St., Little Falls, 09000574

Lewis County

Lewis County Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument, Village Green, NY 26 
and Bostwick Sts., Lowville, 09000575

RHODE ISLAND

Providence County

Borders Farm, 31-38 N. Rd, Foster, 09000576

TENNESSEE

Sumner County

Trousdale-Baskerville House, 211 W. Smith St., Gallatin, 09000577

WASHINGTON

King County

Roanoke Park Historic District, Bounded by Shelby St. on the N., 
Roanoke St. on the S., Harvard Ave. on the W., 10th Ave. on the E., 
Seattle, 09000578

Lincoln County

Atlas E Missile Site 9, 36000 Crescent Rd. N., Reardan, 09000579

WISCONSIN

Columbia County

Farnham, Fred and Lucia, House, 553 W. James St., Columbus, 09000580

Jones, John A. and Maggie, House, 307 N. Ludington St., Columbus, 
09000581

[FR Doc. E9-15889 Filed 7-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
@article{1216671,
  author = {Brian Searle and Allis Chien and Antonius Koller and David Hawke and Anthony Herren and Jenny Kim and Kimberly Lee and Ryan Leib and Alissa Nelson and Jian Min Ren and Paul Stemmer and Yiying Zhu and Ben Neely and Bhavin Patel},
  title = {A multipathway phosphopeptide standard for rapid phosphoproteomics assay development},
  year = {2023},
  number = {22},
  month = {2023-08-30 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Molecular and Cellular Proteomics},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935990},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcpro.2023.100639},
  language = {en},
}
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2018

ABREHET A. AMLESOM, Petitioner,
versus JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-343-081) Submitted: June 10, 2004 Decided: June 29, 2004 Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aragaw Mehari, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher C. Fuller, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lyle D. Jentzer, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Abrehet A. Amlesom, a female native and citizen of Eritrea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture, and voluntary departure. We deny the petition for review. On appeal, Amlesom raises challenges to the immigration judge’s determination that she failed to establish her eligibility for asylum. To obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). See also Blanco de Belbruno v. Ashcroft , 362 F.3d 272, 284 (4th Cir. 2004) (immigration judge’s denial of asylum upheld “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”). Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the evidence of record and conclude that Amlesom fails to show that the evidence compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief Amlesom seeks.- 3 - Additionally, we uphold the immigration judge’s denial of Amlesom’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must demonstrate “a clear probability of persecution.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987). To obtain relief under the Convention Against Torture, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2003). Based on our review of the record, we find that Amlesom has failed to meet either one of these standards. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

PETITION DENIED
H. Res. 52 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 17, 2019. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution 

(H.J. Res. 28) making further continuing appropriations for 

fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes. All points of order 

against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 

joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 

order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. 

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 

joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 

minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or 

their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. 

SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time through the legislative day of January 25, 2019, for the Speaker to entertain 

motions that the House suspend the rules as though under 

clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall con-
2 

•HRES 52 EH 

sult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 32



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



         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned President and Sole
Executive Officer of 4net Software, Inc. (the "Company"), certifies, that to his
knowledge:

         1) the Company's Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended September 30,
         2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
         the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         2) the information contained in the Company's Form 10-KSB for the
         annual period ended September 30, 2007 fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
         Company.


December 21, 2007


                                           /s/ Steven N. Bronson
                                           ----------------------------
                                           Steven N. Bronson, President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Fludd, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 821]

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Eidens, J.), rendered December 1, 2004, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted criminal sale of a con*1125trolled substance in the third degree (a class C felony) in satisfaction of an indictment charging him with three class B felonies for allegedly possessing and selling cocaine. As part of the negotiated plea bargain, he executed a written waiver of his right to appeal and he received a sentence, as a second felony offender, of 5 to 10 years in prison. Defendant appeals.

We affirm. Defendant’s argument that his waiver of appeal was the product of coercion was not properly preserved for review inasmuch as he did not move to withdraw his guilty plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Kirkland,*2 AD3d 1063, 1063 [2003]; *People v Holland,*270 AD2d 718, 718 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 798 [2000]). Even if we were to consider the argument, we would find it unpersuasive since the record reveals that defendant executed a detailed written waiver acknowledging his right to appeal, relating that he had discussed his appellate options with his attorney and stating that he was waiving his right to appeal voluntarily *(see People v Ramos,*7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; *People v Bronson,*28 AD3d 936, 937 [2006]). While defendant expressed disappointment with his attorney, there was no showing of ineffectiveness *(see generally People v McDonald,*1 NY3d 109, 113-114 [2003]) and no factual basis upon which to conclude that he was coerced to take the plea because of less than adequate representation by counsel. Indeed, counsel was able to negotiate a favorable deal in a case where defendant faced a potential life sentence if convicted.

We decline to address the remaining contentions in light of the effective appeal waiver.

Crew III, J.E, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.